[quote=AN]Thanks for the background of the story. So in essence, she didn’t get kick out of the house. I didn’t know about this story and the OP said she was kicked out.
You still didn’t really answer my question. Would you kick out your kids if they’re deadbeat? I know plenty of people who live with their parents until they get married and are not deadbeats. I also know plenty of people who got their college education covered by their parents. They’re not deadbeats either and they’re still quite close to their parents. Some even move back in with their parents till they got married to save for a house. So, I don’t see anything wrong with parents choosing to support their kids when they need help. Just like kids choosing to support their parents when they need help in their old age.[/quote]
AN, I and several others on this thread have tried to establish that we have no issues with adult children living at home who are not “deadbeats”. Our description of a “deadbeat kid” does not necessarily mean one who is unemployed. Nor is an unemployed adult living at home with their parents necessarily a “deadbeat”.
I think that UCGal, bearishgurl, and CA renter agree with me (sound off if you don’t, girls!) when I say that we see nothing wrong with adult children living in their parents’ homes under the following conditions:
(1) It is something with which the parents are truly in accord; and
(2) The adult kids are fully contributing members of the family unit.
If the adult children are unemployed, they should be actively searching for paid employment on a steady basis. They should be covering their own expenses to the best of their abilities Translation: if they have money to buy beer, cigarettes, unnecessary purchases, or to go partying with friends, but are not paying for their food, basic clothing needs, their personal credit card and cell phone bills, or contributing toward rent and utilities (i.e., expecting/demanding that their parents cover these things), there’s something wrong with their priorities. When this type of behavior persists for months or years, it qualifies as “deadbeat” behavior. This is ALSO the case when the adult children are employed.
Adult children should also be doing their own laundry, keeping their personal living quarters neat/clean, picking up after themselves in common areas, and participating on an ongoing basis in the regular cleaning and maintenance routine of the household.
Adult children should treat their parents with respect (as should children of all ages). They should not be demanding that their parents do something for them, or telling them to “shut up”, or cursing them out. I’d like to think that the behavior of children (of ALL ages) as depicted on television reality shows is exaggerated or sensationalized, but I’ve seen too many cases of even worse behavior in real life.
Adult children should also observe any rules of the house that the OWNERS (typically the parents) deign to set. Arriving at the age of 18 does not relieve a child of this responsibility.
This really comes down to whether the situation is one in which both parties are happy with the status quo. If the parents are completely happy on an ongoing basis with the presence of their adult children in the home, and have *no* concerns over their children’s behavior, spending habits, cleanliness, laziness, etc., more power to them. I think that successful intergenerational family living is a wonderful and heartwarming phenomenon. Sometimes, this enables both generations to live life of a higher quality because of sharing of funds, and housekeeping, home maintenance, and child-rearing responsibilities. Often, young adults who live with parents are able to save more money faster than if they lived alone, money that can be used to later buy a home of their own, establish a business, go back to school, or make an investment. The key to the success of such an arrangement is that each party treats the other with respect and is concerned with their happiness.
The problem today is that one-half of the intergenerational unit is usually very unhappy, and, typically, it’s the older parent. Even those parents who encourage their child to move home after graduation from college or loss of employment tend to become stressed and unhappy when that child is lazy, sloppy, self-centered, loud, abusive, and costs them money (often, a lot of money!). Things that were annoying but expected when your kid was 16, (traffic tickets, damage to the family car, failure to mow the grass because it interfered with sleeping until 3 pm, stacks of dirty dishes in the sink and on the bedside table, mountains of smelly laundry, etc.) are not so charming or humorous when he or she is 24 or 28 or 32.
I think that if you interviewed the parents in most of these situations, you’d find out that, even among the ones who encouraged their children to come home, they were becoming increasingly unhappy and extremely stressed over the situation. And, very often, the party that is benefiting from the situation, will try to put a good face on it, such as “My mom loves to wait on me” or My mom doesn’t want me to have to do housework,” or “My parents don’t want me to have to pay my own bills,” or “My dad loves to spoil me.” A childlike attitude, to be sure. But many were never raised to move beyond early childhood. They live in a constant fantasy, of being able to justify any behavior – which, incidentally, may be why many become unemployed and unemployable.
If both parties in an intergenerational living arrangement are content with all but the most minor aspects of it, there’s no problem. But if one part is unhappy, it is not a good situation. And a situation where one party takes and takes and take, and the other is expected to give constantly, is not a “family” relationship. It’s a “master-servant” situation. While there are some psychologically-unhealthy individuals who seek out this type of dynamic with their kids, most do not.
The problem is that many of the parents that are unhappy in situations like this are powerless to change it. The situations arise because the kids weren’t raised with the tools and the skills to go out on their own or to deal with adversity. So the parents who were afraid to “parent” when their kids were young, are still afraid to do so. They thought that they were protecting their children by shielding them from work and responsibility; instead, they were putting them at extreme risk. They can see that risk first hand now as they find themselves unable to force their abusive deadbeat children to leave home and fend for themselves. Very often the parents have also put themselves at extreme risk by remortgaging their homes to the point of foreclosure, depleting their retirement savings, and maxing out a dozen credit cards to deal with their child’s demands and financial screw-ups.
As I’ve mentioned, my children grew up expecting to fend for themselves as adults, and received the education and skills they would need to do this. It would have been so much easier to spoil them, and smooth every step of the road. Believe me when I say that it’s no easier for me to say “no” than it is for any other mom.
They are on their own currently. But in this turbulent economy, anything could happen, and they are ALWAYS welcome to make their homes with me. But they are aware that I do some things differently, and that they will have to respect that. If they came home and didn’t look for jobs, refused to help out, drank excessively or abused drugs, engaged in verbal/physical abuse, and stole money or credit cards from me, you bet I’d kick them out (do not doubt for a minute that it would break my heart to do so). If they are forced to straighten up and behave in a socially acceptable manner in order to feed, clothe, and house themselves, they might wake up and do so; I made sure I raised them with the necessary skills, at least. But if I allow them to stay, tacitly endorsing their socially deviant behavior, and allowing it not only to continue, but to escalate, how exactly is that helping them? How is that loving them or protecting them?
