Carolyn Hax: Loved ones try to ‘strong-arm' child-free couple into babysitting

Washington Post

a day ago

Dear Carolyn: My husband and I are in our early 40s and are happily child-free. We are both professionally successful; we have a large, meticulously appointed home and backyard with a pool; and we have two large dogs, whom we love dearly.
The problem is that our adult siblings and friends believe their children are entitled to our time and the amenities that our home offers.
We're consistently asked — strong-armed — to babysit their children, who range in age from 2 to 14, while they go on vacation, dates, appointments and so on. We have always politely declined, mostly due to work obligations, but also because we just don't want to be responsible for anyone else's kid and don't feel like crating our dogs.
We have even offered to help one sibling find — and pay for — a responsible babysitter but were met with, 'We'd prefer family.'
These requests are sure to pick up now that school is out, with the parents saying things like, 'Can't we just drop them off at your pool for a few hours? Just bring your work outside, they won't be a problem.'
I value these relationships, and sometimes I feel like a bad sister/friend for not being able to accommodate them. But watching a child is a huge responsibility, and I didn't sign up for that. We enjoy our peace and clean home and are legitimately busy people.
How can I continue to maintain good relationships with these people but also keep my boundary of 'no babysitting'?
— Not Your Sitter
Not Your Sitter: Wow. Did you opt out of kids to break the family cycle of chutzpah?
They expect to arm-twist you into taking their kids, and you're worried about how you come across to them. Please think about that for a moment.
This is your property and your time, so your boundary doesn't need justification, soft-soap or 'bad sister' embroidery. If you put a sign on your gate that says DOGS ONLY, then they still won't have grounds for complaint. Really.
This is a line best drawn clearly and once with each sibling: 'We will not agree to babysit. Please don't ask.' A kind tone of voice is all the cushion you owe.
If they are so used to pushing that they push anyway, if you are unwilling to send them away miffed by your bluntness, and/or if you are not emotionally prepared to let your boundary 'no' sit there and do its job (a therapy issue, if you want it to be), then there is more you can say. Just know it's against your columnist's advice.
'Since one 'yes' means yes to everyone and that isn't possible, our only rational option is one 'no' to everyone. Thanks for understanding.' Rational option, or non-hurtful, un-messy, bearable — your adjective here.
Any meaningful time you can spend with these families that's within your boundaries will help. More bonding, less time playing defense.
That's it for my advice to you, so you can stop here and scritch your dogs.
I have a preemptive message now for some commenters based on my familiarity with a certain knee reflex: No, this couple's wealth, pool, house size and use of 'appointed' do not translate to their owing any more than anyone else would to their siblings or friends in the same situation.
To recap: zero free or coercive child care, zero explanations.