Mother Gets Accused Of Being ‘Rude’ And ‘Unwelcoming’ After Refusing To Cover The Bill For Her Daughter’s Boyfriend

Things got heated between a mother and her 24-year-old daughter after the mother refused to cover her daughter's 30-year-old boyfriend's bill. The mother had called her daughter for lunch, not knowing the boyfriend was coming too. She had paid for herself and her daughter but refused to cover the bill for her daughter's boyfriend. The daughter got offended and said that her mother wasn't being welcomed and accused her of avoiding responsibility. After things got worse between them, the mother was left wondering if she was in the wrong. How do you think she should handle the situation? Read on to see what other people have to say.

The original commentator (NTA) believed the daughter's boyfriend was rude to expect the mother to pay his bill, as he was not invited to the gathering in the first place. Commenters supported the view that the boyfriend's actions were unacceptable and were reminiscent of an entitled freeloader.

The comment argues that it was NTA (not the a**hole) of the mother to refuse to pay for a meal her daughter's boyfriend was invited to without her knowledge. Replies range from agreeing that it was the daughter and boyfriend's responsibility to pay for the meal, to noting the entitlement of the boyfriend. Some replies also mention that the boyfriend may be financially unable to pay for the meal.

The commenter thinks it's unacceptable for the daughter's boyfriend to show up without prior warning, and without any money. The replies focus on the daughter's own financial struggles and her need for the mother's help.

The commenter lays out why the mother was not in the wrong for denying to pay for her daughter's uninvited boyfriend. The replies agree, with one of them saying that had they known their significant other was invited, they would have changed plans.

Mother and daughter both made assumptions that led to a conflict. Everyone seems to have misunderstood each other's intentions and expectations, resulting in the mother acting "smugly" when she refused to pay for the daughter's boyfriend. ESH - Everyone here "sucks" as none of their behaviors were "cool".

The commenter is questioning why the mother ordered for her daughter, and if it's a sign of controlling behavior. Replies range from speculating that the mother knows what her daughter likes to suggest that it is a sign of controlling behavior.

The comment discusses how the mother should have handled the situation with grace and generosity, and should not have sprung the surprise guests on the family. The replies are divided, some believing the mother is an a-hole while others suggest she should have handled the situation better and been more generous and gracious regardless of the boyfriend's behavior. Everyone should have taken more responsibility for their actions and learned a lesson.

The comment acknowledges the mother as Not The A**hole for not covering the bill for her daughter's boyfriend, as bringing extra people to a lunch date uninvited is considered quite rude. The comment goes on to suggest that the daughter and her boyfriend were impolite and rude and brought this situation upon themselves by not realizing that the mother would put her foot down.

The commenter said 'NTA' (not the a**hole), in response to the mother's refusal to cover the bill for her daughter's boyfriend. They called the 30-year-old boyfriend's expectation to be bought lunch uninvited 'pos' (positive).

The commenter believes that the daughter and her boyfriend were trying to take advantage of the mother and should not be given a free meal. They call the mother Not the A**hole in this situation.

Commenter suggests Mom should not be expected to pay for her daughter's plus one. NTA (Not The A**hole).

The commenter expresses outrage that a 30-year-old partner of their daughter would show up to lunch with them and not bring any money. They believe that the mother didn't need to pay, but that the partner should have. Another reply agrees, claiming that buying lunch for the three of them would have been a "pro move".

The commenter thinks the mother could have expressed her disapproval of her daughter's boyfriend in a better way than refusing to pay for his lunch. Everyone is at fault for this lunch gone wrong. The commenter's reply adds that the mother did herself a disservice.

The commenter says NTA (not the a**hole) as the daughter and her boyfriend sound entitled for expecting the mother to cover the bill for their mother-daughter date, even though the boyfriend was not invited.

The 24-year-old daughter and 30-year-old unemployed boyfriend acted entitled and assumed mom would cover the bill, which would be completely inappropriate. Mom wasn't wrong in refusing to cover the bill and even though they were left in a bad situation mom still shouldn't have caved. Additionally, the guests should have discussed ground rules beforehand, and families of 24-year-olds and 30-year-olds don't usually qualify as "kids".

The commenter declared that the mother was Not The A**hole (NTA) for refusing to cover the bill for her daughter and her boyfriend. They deemed the couple as entitled for expecting the mother to pick up the tab without giving any warning. The commenter further stated that the daughter was manipulating the situation, but like a toddler and not an adult.

The commenter asserts that everyone is at fault, noting that the mother acted petty, the daughter and her boyfriend were irresponsible for not bringing money, and the boyfriend was rude for ordering a lot when he knew he wouldn't pay. Several replies defend the mother's etiquette and accuse the boyfriend of planning to not pay from the start.

Mother NTA after refusing to cover the bill for daughter and her boyfriend. The daughter accuses the mother of being 'rude' and 'unwelcoming'. The daughter made a "weird threat" considering she couldn't pay for food either.

The commenter expressed confusion over the situation, questioning why the 30-year-old man was expecting a free lunch and why the daughter invited him without checking in with her mom first.

NTA, the 30-year-old bf was an unemployed moocher showing up for a free meal. One reply envisions the daughter going in and is surprised that mom put her foot down.

The commenter believes the mother is not the a-hole and was right to not pay for her daughter's boyfriend's meal as the boyfriend was not invited in the first place. The commenter suggests the mother should not apologize and should not pay for her daughter's boyfriend's debt.

The commenter argues that adults shouldn't be going out to eat without the means to pay, however, as a parent, if their child brings their partner to eat lunch, they would be willing to pay for them. No a**hole here.

The commenter concludes that the mother (OP) is not the a**hole (NTA) in this situation. The daughter and her boyfriend were disrespectful and expected the mother to back down and cover the bill without any communication in advance. The commenter advises the mother to hold her ground and not back down and wishes her the best as her daughter has a lot of growing up to do.

The comment states that the mother was NTA (not the a**hole) for refusing to cover the bill for her daughter's boyfriend as she should have been informed about him beforehand and that her daughter should not have expected her to pay for the meal.

The comment suggests that the mother acted too pettily by refusing to cover the bill for her daughter and her boyfriend, resulting in a misunderstanding. In response, a reply suggested that the couple should have at least offered to pay back the bill if they wanted to handle it instead of ordering something they couldn't afford, which would have been plain bad manners.

The comment and its replies agree that the mother is not the a**hole in this situation, as the daughter invited the boyfriend without asking and the couple didn't bring money with them. Therefore, it is not the mother's responsibility to cover the bill.

The comment poster remarks that it is not a UK thing to expect someone else to pay for you, and believes that the daughter and her boyfriend are being rude. The comment replies agree and say that it is always important to bring your wallet with you, even if someone has said beforehand that they will pay.

The commenter calls out the daughter and her boyfriend for being a**holes, giving their full name 'Chooch the Mooch'.

A commenter expressed suspicion about the situation, questioning it to be "sus".

The commenter said that the mother was Not The A**hole for not covering the bill for her daughter's boyfriend, as he was uninvited and it's reasonable to only pay for herself.

The comment opines that the daughter's boyfriend looks like an opportunist and a user, and it is outrageous that she threw a hissy fit over not having her parents cover the bill. The comment opines that it would have been smarter if the daughter had the boyfriend cover the bill instead.

Mom was trying to call out her daughter and her boyfriend for their rude behavior, but her approach backfired and made her look like an a**hole. As a result, the daughter and boyfriend grow even closer and further away from Mom.

The comment states that the mother is not the a**hole and that she needs to learn that she can't invite a guest at someone else's expense without their permission, making this her own rule to follow.

The original comment warns to be careful of the daughter's boyfriend as the poster knows a similar story from the UK Forum, where her daughter's boyfriend came uninvited, ordered the dearest item on the menu, and had to be bailed out. The poster cautions that, after years, the boyfriend had control over the daughter and kept her away from her parents who were only allowed contact when requesting money. This is an "awfully sad story" according to the poster and should be avoided.

The comment suggests that the mother’s behavior was cruel and awful, and this incident was more than just about an uninvited lunch guest. The comment writer speculates that the mother's daughter may have gotten her poor manners from her mother and if the daughter truly loves her boyfriend, then the lunch bill won't stop that. The comment writer also suggests that this incident may have given the daughter a reason to become closer to her boyfriend, despite him being a *mannerless* a**hole.

The comment states that the mother is 'not the a**hole' (NTA) for not covering her daughter's boyfriend's bill, as it shows a lack of self-respect.

The commenter is Not The A-hole, believing the mother's daughter is in an abusive relationship. They comment on how people like her daughter's boyfriend have no shame and hope she wakes up to the situation before it's too late. A reply wonders if her daughter invited him as a buffer and told him he'd be getting a free meal.

The original comment said Not The A**hole and accused the daughter's boyfriend Simon of wanting free lunch and being impolite by ordering many things and expensive ones as well.

The commenter thinks the mom is Not The Ass**le (NTA) for refusing to cover the bill for her daughter's boyfriend since he came to the restaurant without money or a card. The commenter also believes the daughter was entitled assuming her mother would pay.

The comment is asking if the mom ever specified that she was only inviting her daughter before the bill came and no replies have been made yet.

The comment replies NTA (not the a**hole) and asks the mother to remind her daughter that her mother will always care for her, but will not foot the bills for them any longer. The comment also emphasizes that the daughter's partner might use this as an excuse to further alienate her from her mother.

The commenter says the mom is "NTA" (Not The A**hole) but suggests she talk to her daughter out of his earshot to investigate if it could be a sign of an abusive relationship.

The original comment suggested that the mother was rude and unwelcoming for refusing to cover her daughter's boyfriend's meal. The reply defended her actions by stating that it was important to ask beforehand and not just assume. The reply concluded that the mother was not the a**hole (NTA) in the situation.

The commentator believes the mother is not at fault and describes her daughter's boyfriend as a 'parasite' who are not allowed to drink the mother's 'blood'.