Banning Controlling Mother-In-Law From The House: Is It Justified?

When a man lost his wife six years ago, he found himself raising his 16-year-old son, Daniel, alone. However, things got complicated when he got engaged to his fiancee of two years, as her controlling mother-in-law became a fixture in their lives.

Daniel was regularly criticized and embarrassed by her, and the man eventually gave him the choice to no longer be in the same room or house as his mother-in-law. Last week, she visited unexpectedly and Daniel's journal went missing. Upon investigation, it was found in her purse.

The man blew up at her, berated her for stealing from his son, and banned her from his house. His fiancee apologized for her but said banning her from the house was over the top, and her family won't come to their wedding until he reconciles and cancels the ban.

This begs the question: is it justified?

Read on to learn more about the situation and the comments and reactions it has elicited.

The commenter was in full agreement that the MIL should be banned from the house and even suggested postponing the wedding until the fiancée understands the gravity of the situation and agrees to stand up for the son. Replies suggested having an ironclad will in place and prioritizing the son's well-being.

The comment states that the fiancée's parents won't be attending the wedding and the commenter is NTA. Replies suggest that the son would be relieved if his future in-laws weren't present, and that the situation is more complex than just the wedding and that the son's future stepmother might not look out for him.

The commenter is defending the OP's decision to ban their controlling mother-in-law from their house. The commenter states that the MIL's behavior is toxic and abusive and that the OP did the right thing in protecting their son from her. The commenter also encourages the OP to stand firm and not let the MIL's family push them around. The reply further enforces this sentiment, citing the MIL sneaking the OP's son's journal as a serious violation of boundaries.

The comment writer says the OP is NTA for banning the mother-in-law from the house, given that the fiancée is preferring her comfort over the son's wellbeing. The replies focus on the need for the mother-in-law to "go" and the potential consequences of the fiancée's behavior for any future children.

The comment says NTA (not the a**hole) except for the part where the commenter compares this horrible woman to the amazing and lovable Dolly Parton. Replies to the comment agree that NTA is the right judgment, but disagree with the comparison to Dolly. They praise her work towards education and suggest that the MIL's behavior might be the tip of the iceberg.

The commenter advises the father to put his son's needs first and not marry his fiancee until she is willing to set and enforce boundaries with her parents. Replies to the comment agree that the ban on the mother-in-law from the house is fully justified and affirm the father's heroic efforts to protect his son from intrusive in-laws. Everyone agrees that the father is "NTA" (not the a**hole).

OP is not the a**hole for protecting his son from the controlling mother-in-law. Commenters advise OP to stop calling them MIL and FIL until they respect his son and find someone who will stand up for him no matter what. They also suggest OP to have a look at what the future holds for him if he doesn't act now. OP should think hard about the situation to ensure the best for his son and his own sanity.

Daniel's comment is that his mother-in-law is toxic and he is justified in banning her from the house to protect his son from her abuse. The comment replies agree that the mother-in-law's behavior is toxic and understand why Daniel is taking such measures to protect his son.

The comment states that the poster is the a**hole for not kicking their fiancé to the curb for enabling their mother’s toxic behavior. Replies include agreement with the comment and an additional deleted comment.

The commenter argues that the problem is not only with the controlling mother-in-law but also the fiancé for not supporting the situation from the beginning. They express concern for Daniel and hope he gets the necessary support.

The commenter says they are NTA (not the a**hole) for banning their controlling mother-in-law from the house because she is trying to mold their son into something he is not. A reply adds that the MIL has been disrespectful and that the commenter takes steps to make sure their son's boundaries are respected.

The commenter says the OP is not the a**hole and acknowledges that the parent is standing up for their child. They suggest that the parent reconsider their relationship, as stealing a journal from a child is unacceptable. The ban from the house is seen as a mild punishment compared to a restraining order. The commenter then encourages the parent to stay strong and not let themselves be gaslighted.

The commenter is says the OP is Not The A**hole and believes that the controlling mother-in-law should be banned from the house, and out of the son's life unless the son wishes to spend time with her.

OP was right to stand up for their son when their controlling mother-in-law tried to dictate how to parent their child. She even stooped so low as to steal the child's journal. OP may have just dodged a bullet and NTA for their actions."

Commenter says the OP is NTA (not the a**hole), as they believe it is hugely toxic for the mother-in-law to enter the room and steal the journal. They are suggesting the fiance to consider how she would feel if someone did the same to her, and how the mother-in-law's desires cannot come before the safety of their child.

The commenter believes the mother-in-law should not be allowed in the house again and believes the act of stealing an adolescent's journal is not ok and morally bankrupt.

The comment advises to end the plan of marrying into the abusive family and get a girl who cares about the son. It also emphasizes on the need to move away from the abusive psychopaths and the unfortunate reality that once married, the wife will do/permit whatever the new mother wants.

The commenter says the OP is NTA in defending the safety and privacy of their son against their mother-in-law who is stealing from their home. The replies suggest that the fiancée needs to shape up or ship out if she does not recognize the importance of protecting the son from her mother.

NTA! You are protecting your son, that is your top priority. You need to set clear boundaries with the mother-in-law, as she sounds childish. Your son has already lost his mother and should not feel he has lost you to this new family as well.

Commenter states that the mother-in-law's "caring" is not real, as she has made no effort to get to know the real son and instead seeks to "fix" him. Commenter suggests the fiancée may be acting on her daughter's wishes."

The comment recommends the person to "Get the f--k out now" and make a police report about the attempted theft, as their controlling mother-in-law's behavior is too much to handle.

The commenter says the OP is Not The A**hole and suggests that the relationship with the son is more important than with the mother-in-law. They also suggest that the mother-in-law is projecting her abuse onto the commenter and that the commenter's fiancee does not understand why the commenter is "causing drama".

The comment suggests that the best way to deal with the controlling mother-in-law situation is to "run away" since it won't get better and will only get worse."

The commenter declared that they can't understand how the fiance can justify the mother-in-law's behavior, labeling him as Not The A**hole (NTA).

The commenter suggests that the first step for the controlling mother-in-law (MIL) to take is to apologize to the original poster (OP) and their fiancé, and agree to respect their boundaries. They advise OP to keep advocating for their son's well-being but to be aware that it may be the end of the relationship if their fiancé doesn't stand up for them.

The commenter believes that the mother-in-law should have been banned from the house sooner, as she is a stranger to the son.

The comment urges the reader to put their son first and leave the relationship in their rearview mirror. The comment states that the reader is Not The A**hole.

The commenter states that they did the right thing in banning the controlling mother-in-law from the house and that the mother-in-law needs mental help. The commenter further states that it was wrong of the mother-in-law to steal someone's diary and that the fianceé needs to understand how wrong her mother is. If the fianceé sides with the mother-in-law, the commenter says the wedding should be called off.

The comment states that the ban of the controlling mother-in-law from the house is completely justified as she was "completely out of bounds". The comment further criticizes the fiancé for siding with her mother instead of supporting the son's father. It ends with the suggestion to reconsider if the fiancé is the "sort of person you want to marry."

The comment affirms that the son should come before any relationship, including with the mother-in-law.

NTA! You did the right thing and stood up for your son who is your first obligation. I think you need to go one step further and have a conversation with your fiancée about setting and enforcing boundaries with her family. Stealing his diary is a huge violation and it is very important that Daniel hears it from you that what she did was not OK.

The commenter believes the mother-in-law's attempts to control the soon-to-be stepson are misguided, and that the couple should discuss how they both feel about their expectations of each other in the stepson's life.

Grandma is accused of stealing from her grandkid, but the commenter says "NTA". Nobody thinks the OP should apologize for his behavior.

The comment states the OP is NTA (not the a**hole) in regards to banning the controlling mother-in-law from the house. It suggests that the fiancee should not have a wedding until her parents apologize or cut her off. It further emphasizes that the son should be priority 1, 2, and 3, and suggests the fiancee leave if the parents cannot get over that.

The commenter says the OP is NTA (not the a**hole) for banning the 'psycho MIL' from the house. They suggest that if the fiance won't stick up for the son, they shouldn't be there either. The commenter is outraged that the MIL invaded the son's privacy in his own home.

The commenter agrees that the controlling mother-in-law should be banned from the house, and adds that if the woman cares about the son, she should have banned her mother too until she apologized. The commenter expresses worry that the woman doesn't seem to defend her son.

Commenter states that the original poster (OP) should not tolerate the mother-in-law (MIL) invading the son's space and stealing his stuff and that the fiancé should decide whether she is with the OP or against him. "No one gets to invade your son's space and steal his stuff. No one."

The commenter says the OP is NTA (not the a**hole) for standing up for their 16-year-old son. They believe that the step-grandmother is wildly violating his privacy by stealing his personal property and should stay out of it.

The commenter says the original poster (OP) is not the a**hole (NTA) and suggests that the fiance may not see the mother-in-law's behavior as wrong due to growing up in a similar environment.

The comment acknowledges that the original poster (OP) is not the a**hole (NTA) for wanting to ban their mother-in-law from the house. The comment also suggests that the OP's fiancé should recognize this since her mother has been hurting their son and invading their privacy.

The commenter is applauding the OP for paying attention and preventing a potentially embarrassing moment for their son by a stranger reading their private thoughts.

The commenter believes the mother-in-law is in the wrong and praises the original poster for standing up for her son. They suggest reconsidering marrying someone who puts their mother's actions ahead of their son's privacy.

Commenter says the OP is NTA (not the a**hole) and believes that the son should come first in this tough situation. Good job for protecting him.

The comment suggests getting locks fitted on all doors to keep the controlling mother-in-law out and creating safes with locks for private stuff. One reply questioned whether the couple had become hostages to the mother-in-law's insanity.

NTA. Father is considering his son's privacy and feelings regarding this pushy person. Anyone in their right mind would ban a person for doing that, and the a**hole in this situation is the mother for stealing and snooping.

The comment suggests that the OP is not the A**hole for taking action against the controlling mother-in-law, as she has no say in the decisions made in the house or the way the son is raised. The comment also recommends that if the fiancé can't understand this, then it's time to move on, as the son is the priority, not the "crazy family".

The commenter states that everyone involved in the situation is being selfish, except for the OP and their son. The commenter declares the OP to be Not The A**hole here.

The comment expresses how the NTA (not the a**hole) person has been disrespected by their fiancé who invalidated them for defending their son. It suggests that the fiancé will never change, and questions if it is wise to stay with her and open the son up to harassment for the rest of his life.

The comment suggests that the poster is YWBTA (you're the a**hole) for marrying into a situation that they know will have a long-term impact on their relationship with their son. They ask about the potential long-term impact if the poster moves forward with the situation.

The original poster's father was in a relationship with their controlling mother-in-law and took steps to protect them when he found out the full extent of her controlling attitude. After forty years, their relationship with their father is still strong. The original poster is thankful, considering the father to be NTA (not the a**hole).

The comment questions the role of the fiancée in the situation and suggests that the son-in-law is "NTA" unless there is more information missing.

The commenter says the SIL is NTA (not the a**hole) and is pleased that the original poster defended their son. The commenter recommends that the original poster's fiancé be understanding and let their mother visit elsewhere while her son still lives at home.

The commenter said NTA (not the a**hole) and argued that the mother-in-law's behavior was an invasion of privacy and detriment to the son's psychological well-being. They suggested framing it as such to take it more seriously and preserve the confidentiality of the son's therapy.