Parents kicking their children out of the home

[KSMountain]

[quote=Jacarandoso]On the flip side, I hate the way the emphasis on professional “success” often splits up families. With “globalism” I imagine my kids will be successfully living half way around the planet if we let them develop anything useful towards competing in the world. I am not sure of the value of these trade-offs.[/quote]
Interesting point.

[lifeisgood]

I’ll start off by saying this. It’s amazing what you can do if you have to do it. I have no problem with kids staying at home with there parents to pursue a college degree or some other form of realistic career option. I do not agree with living off of your parents and spinning wheels waiting on something to fall in your lap.

Prime example: My sister in law graduated with a masters degree in education and started working as a teacher the following year. She was soon layed off due to the lack of teaching jobs in Cali. She then immidiately started receiving unemployment benefits and continued to stay at home. She asked her parents to allow her boyfriend (now fiance) to move in. They allowed her boyfriend to move in. After three years, they have mimimal savings that they are spending entirely on there extravigant wedding and huge engagement ring. By now they should have zero debt and a substantial savings account, but instead they have a nicer wardrobe, a new motorcycle, and a nice portfolio of pictures from the many vacations that they have went on.

I blame this entirely on there parents. Although she got laid off from teaching, she has never gone a week without getting a paycheck or looked outside of only one school district for a teaching job. She got a full time job shortly afer unemployment benefits expiring which has nothing to do with her degree. They have no plans of moving out after they get married in a couple of months. They are both in there early 30’s and without any plan or goal in place to move forward in life.

First of all I would not have let her boyfriend move in. That creates no urgency to move out. Also I would have given a time line of when they needed to move out. She has an entitled attitude and demonstrates that by allowing her parents to pay her bills, except her cell phone, even though she has never missed a paycheck. It’s also sad that she shares a cell phone with her mom and hassles her mom every month for 40 dollars of the bill. I would pay the 40 dollars if my parents were paying my car insurance(just a thought). Her parents are setting them up for failure in life and the sad thing is that these so called kids have no desire to move out and become independent. They could but they choose not to. She refuses to live in an area of the county that they could afford because it is beneath them.

The biggest problem with this is that her parents could have retired a long time ago if they pushed there child to get out of there house. There children all have college degrees and all but one of three still receive some sort of financial help from there parents. They have created human leaches.

[lifeisgood]

I’ll start off by saying this. It’s amazing what you can do if you have to do it. I have no problem with kids staying at home with there parents to pursue a college degree or some other form of realistic career option. I do not agree with living off of your parents and spinning wheels waiting on something to fall in your lap.

Prime example: My sister in law graduated with a masters degree in education and started working as a teacher the following year. She was soon layed off due to the lack of teaching jobs in Cali. She then immidiately started receiving unemployment benefits and continued to stay at home. She asked her parents to allow her boyfriend (now fiance) to move in. They allowed her boyfriend to move in. After three years, they have mimimal savings that they are spending entirely on there extravigant wedding and huge engagement ring. By now they should have zero debt and a substantial savings account, but instead they have a nicer wardrobe, a new motorcycle, and a nice portfolio of pictures from the many vacations that they have went on.

I blame this entirely on there parents. Although she got laid off from teaching, she has never gone a week without getting a paycheck or looked outside of only one school district for a teaching job. She got a full time job shortly afer unemployment benefits expiring which has nothing to do with her degree. They have no plans of moving out after they get married in a couple of months. They are both in there early 30’s and without any plan or goal in place to move forward in life.

First of all I would not have let her boyfriend move in. That creates no urgency to move out. Also I would have given a time line of when they needed to move out. She has an entitled attitude and demonstrates that by allowing her parents to pay her bills, except her cell phone, even though she has never missed a paycheck. It’s also sad that she shares a cell phone with her mom and hassles her mom every month for 40 dollars of the bill. I would pay the 40 dollars if my parents were paying my car insurance(just a thought). Her parents are setting them up for failure in life and the sad thing is that these so called kids have no desire to move out and become independent. They could but they choose not to. She refuses to live in an area of the county that they could afford because it is beneath them.

The biggest problem with this is that her parents could have retired a long time ago if they pushed there child to get out of there house. There children all have college degrees and all but one of three still receive some sort of financial help from there parents. They have created human leaches.

[lifeisgood]

I’ll start off by saying this. It’s amazing what you can do if you have to do it. I have no problem with kids staying at home with there parents to pursue a college degree or some other form of realistic career option. I do not agree with living off of your parents and spinning wheels waiting on something to fall in your lap.

Prime example: My sister in law graduated with a masters degree in education and started working as a teacher the following year. She was soon layed off due to the lack of teaching jobs in Cali. She then immidiately started receiving unemployment benefits and continued to stay at home. She asked her parents to allow her boyfriend (now fiance) to move in. They allowed her boyfriend to move in. After three years, they have mimimal savings that they are spending entirely on there extravigant wedding and huge engagement ring. By now they should have zero debt and a substantial savings account, but instead they have a nicer wardrobe, a new motorcycle, and a nice portfolio of pictures from the many vacations that they have went on.

I blame this entirely on there parents. Although she got laid off from teaching, she has never gone a week without getting a paycheck or looked outside of only one school district for a teaching job. She got a full time job shortly afer unemployment benefits expiring which has nothing to do with her degree. They have no plans of moving out after they get married in a couple of months. They are both in there early 30’s and without any plan or goal in place to move forward in life.

First of all I would not have let her boyfriend move in. That creates no urgency to move out. Also I would have given a time line of when they needed to move out. She has an entitled attitude and demonstrates that by allowing her parents to pay her bills, except her cell phone, even though she has never missed a paycheck. It’s also sad that she shares a cell phone with her mom and hassles her mom every month for 40 dollars of the bill. I would pay the 40 dollars if my parents were paying my car insurance(just a thought). Her parents are setting them up for failure in life and the sad thing is that these so called kids have no desire to move out and become independent. They could but they choose not to. She refuses to live in an area of the county that they could afford because it is beneath them.

The biggest problem with this is that her parents could have retired a long time ago if they pushed there child to get out of there house. There children all have college degrees and all but one of three still receive some sort of financial help from there parents. They have created human leaches.

[lifeisgood]

I’ll start off by saying this. It’s amazing what you can do if you have to do it. I have no problem with kids staying at home with there parents to pursue a college degree or some other form of realistic career option. I do not agree with living off of your parents and spinning wheels waiting on something to fall in your lap.

Prime example: My sister in law graduated with a masters degree in education and started working as a teacher the following year. She was soon layed off due to the lack of teaching jobs in Cali. She then immidiately started receiving unemployment benefits and continued to stay at home. She asked her parents to allow her boyfriend (now fiance) to move in. They allowed her boyfriend to move in. After three years, they have mimimal savings that they are spending entirely on there extravigant wedding and huge engagement ring. By now they should have zero debt and a substantial savings account, but instead they have a nicer wardrobe, a new motorcycle, and a nice portfolio of pictures from the many vacations that they have went on.

I blame this entirely on there parents. Although she got laid off from teaching, she has never gone a week without getting a paycheck or looked outside of only one school district for a teaching job. She got a full time job shortly afer unemployment benefits expiring which has nothing to do with her degree. They have no plans of moving out after they get married in a couple of months. They are both in there early 30’s and without any plan or goal in place to move forward in life.

First of all I would not have let her boyfriend move in. That creates no urgency to move out. Also I would have given a time line of when they needed to move out. She has an entitled attitude and demonstrates that by allowing her parents to pay her bills, except her cell phone, even though she has never missed a paycheck. It’s also sad that she shares a cell phone with her mom and hassles her mom every month for 40 dollars of the bill. I would pay the 40 dollars if my parents were paying my car insurance(just a thought). Her parents are setting them up for failure in life and the sad thing is that these so called kids have no desire to move out and become independent. They could but they choose not to. She refuses to live in an area of the county that they could afford because it is beneath them.

The biggest problem with this is that her parents could have retired a long time ago if they pushed there child to get out of there house. There children all have college degrees and all but one of three still receive some sort of financial help from there parents. They have created human leaches.

[lifeisgood]

I’ll start off by saying this. It’s amazing what you can do if you have to do it. I have no problem with kids staying at home with there parents to pursue a college degree or some other form of realistic career option. I do not agree with living off of your parents and spinning wheels waiting on something to fall in your lap.

Prime example: My sister in law graduated with a masters degree in education and started working as a teacher the following year. She was soon layed off due to the lack of teaching jobs in Cali. She then immidiately started receiving unemployment benefits and continued to stay at home. She asked her parents to allow her boyfriend (now fiance) to move in. They allowed her boyfriend to move in. After three years, they have mimimal savings that they are spending entirely on there extravigant wedding and huge engagement ring. By now they should have zero debt and a substantial savings account, but instead they have a nicer wardrobe, a new motorcycle, and a nice portfolio of pictures from the many vacations that they have went on.

I blame this entirely on there parents. Although she got laid off from teaching, she has never gone a week without getting a paycheck or looked outside of only one school district for a teaching job. She got a full time job shortly afer unemployment benefits expiring which has nothing to do with her degree. They have no plans of moving out after they get married in a couple of months. They are both in there early 30’s and without any plan or goal in place to move forward in life.

First of all I would not have let her boyfriend move in. That creates no urgency to move out. Also I would have given a time line of when they needed to move out. She has an entitled attitude and demonstrates that by allowing her parents to pay her bills, except her cell phone, even though she has never missed a paycheck. It’s also sad that she shares a cell phone with her mom and hassles her mom every month for 40 dollars of the bill. I would pay the 40 dollars if my parents were paying my car insurance(just a thought). Her parents are setting them up for failure in life and the sad thing is that these so called kids have no desire to move out and become independent. They could but they choose not to. She refuses to live in an area of the county that they could afford because it is beneath them.

The biggest problem with this is that her parents could have retired a long time ago if they pushed there child to get out of there house. There children all have college degrees and all but one of three still receive some sort of financial help from there parents. They have created human leaches.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=AN]
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.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.[/quote]

Bingo, UCGal. Could not agree more.

Have to add…even if kids are going to college or working, that shouldn’t mean that mom is still doing their laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping, cooking, etc. Perhaps it’s me, but how in the world are these kids expected to be able to take care of themselves when mommy is doing everything for them well into adulthood?

As to your question, AN. That’s a very difficult situation, and I have a very intimate experience with it.

My sister and I ran with some pretty wild kids when we were growing up, but by the age of 15, I had sobered up, gotten out of HS (California’s Proficiency Exam — the best thing I’ve ever done), and began working. The week after I turned 16, I started attending JC as a business major. Leaving HS (and all its bad influences — this, even in an “upper middle-class” neighborhood/school), working, and attending classes that I took by choice, are what made me succeed in life. My sister, OTOH, made other choices, and she never held a job for more than a few months, at most. She was an alcoholic, and bounced from house to house, as she wore out her welcome with anyone who tried to help. Why? Because she refused to help herself.

For those who’ve never experienced what it’s like to have an abusive, alcoholic/addict in the house, it would be diffucult to understand how destructive these kids can be to a household, and why some people choose to “kick their kids out of the house.” These parents are not being unkind, but often are led to this decision because they have been verbally and physically abused for years, or they have had their belongings stolen and/or sold off to raise drug money, or they have had shady drug dealers and other sorts brought into their home, even when they’ve asked their kids not to do this. They’ve picked up their kids at jail in the middle of the night, they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on counseling and drug rehabs, all to no avail. Oftentimes, their marriages have crumbled under the pressure of it all, and the relationships with their other kids (and the kids’ relationships with one another) are strained, or non-existent.

Anyway, my parents had done everything they could to help my sister, but she spent her life on the road,, and in and out of various people’s homes, and we only heard from her when she wanted money (once or twice a year). If her request was denied (because we knew where it would be going, and offered to pay bills directly, but not give cash), she’d go on a rampage, shouting “F— you!!!,” cursing us out in a mad rage.

Back in 1994, I came down from LA to visit my mom in SD, and we were up late at night discussing my sister’s situation. It was around 2:00 a.m., when I told my mom, “you just have to learn to let her go,” and she cried, “you don’t understand…it’s so hard to do that when it’s your baby.” Then, the phone rang, and without answering it, we knew exactly who it was. The coroner called to let us know that my sister was found dead on a busy road in Vegas. She was stumbling drunk in the middle of a busy road, when an innocent driver of a truck hit her.

Even with this experience, and similar experiences of other families with whom I’m very close, I would still elect to kick my kid out if they refused to be a contributing part of the family. Sometimes, the loss of one is better than the loss of all. Sometimes, a person is determined to self-destruct, and there is nothing in the world that can bring them back. If there were easy answers, there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of families anxiously looking for them, but I have yet to see people successfully turn these kids around by enabling them to sit at home, drinking and using drugs, doing nothing at all useful (which I think is essential for the humand mind to remain sane), as the parents wait for that miraculous transformation that Eaves mentioned, above.

It’s a sad topic, but too many of us have seen it first hand. There are no easy answers.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=AN]
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.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.[/quote]

Bingo, UCGal. Could not agree more.

Have to add…even if kids are going to college or working, that shouldn’t mean that mom is still doing their laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping, cooking, etc. Perhaps it’s me, but how in the world are these kids expected to be able to take care of themselves when mommy is doing everything for them well into adulthood?

As to your question, AN. That’s a very difficult situation, and I have a very intimate experience with it.

My sister and I ran with some pretty wild kids when we were growing up, but by the age of 15, I had sobered up, gotten out of HS (California’s Proficiency Exam — the best thing I’ve ever done), and began working. The week after I turned 16, I started attending JC as a business major. Leaving HS (and all its bad influences — this, even in an “upper middle-class” neighborhood/school), working, and attending classes that I took by choice, are what made me succeed in life. My sister, OTOH, made other choices, and she never held a job for more than a few months, at most. She was an alcoholic, and bounced from house to house, as she wore out her welcome with anyone who tried to help. Why? Because she refused to help herself.

For those who’ve never experienced what it’s like to have an abusive, alcoholic/addict in the house, it would be diffucult to understand how destructive these kids can be to a household, and why some people choose to “kick their kids out of the house.” These parents are not being unkind, but often are led to this decision because they have been verbally and physically abused for years, or they have had their belongings stolen and/or sold off to raise drug money, or they have had shady drug dealers and other sorts brought into their home, even when they’ve asked their kids not to do this. They’ve picked up their kids at jail in the middle of the night, they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on counseling and drug rehabs, all to no avail. Oftentimes, their marriages have crumbled under the pressure of it all, and the relationships with their other kids (and the kids’ relationships with one another) are strained, or non-existent.

Anyway, my parents had done everything they could to help my sister, but she spent her life on the road,, and in and out of various people’s homes, and we only heard from her when she wanted money (once or twice a year). If her request was denied (because we knew where it would be going, and offered to pay bills directly, but not give cash), she’d go on a rampage, shouting “F— you!!!,” cursing us out in a mad rage.

Back in 1994, I came down from LA to visit my mom in SD, and we were up late at night discussing my sister’s situation. It was around 2:00 a.m., when I told my mom, “you just have to learn to let her go,” and she cried, “you don’t understand…it’s so hard to do that when it’s your baby.” Then, the phone rang, and without answering it, we knew exactly who it was. The coroner called to let us know that my sister was found dead on a busy road in Vegas. She was stumbling drunk in the middle of a busy road, when an innocent driver of a truck hit her.

Even with this experience, and similar experiences of other families with whom I’m very close, I would still elect to kick my kid out if they refused to be a contributing part of the family. Sometimes, the loss of one is better than the loss of all. Sometimes, a person is determined to self-destruct, and there is nothing in the world that can bring them back. If there were easy answers, there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of families anxiously looking for them, but I have yet to see people successfully turn these kids around by enabling them to sit at home, drinking and using drugs, doing nothing at all useful (which I think is essential for the humand mind to remain sane), as the parents wait for that miraculous transformation that Eaves mentioned, above.

It’s a sad topic, but too many of us have seen it first hand. There are no easy answers.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=AN]
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.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.[/quote]

Bingo, UCGal. Could not agree more.

Have to add…even if kids are going to college or working, that shouldn’t mean that mom is still doing their laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping, cooking, etc. Perhaps it’s me, but how in the world are these kids expected to be able to take care of themselves when mommy is doing everything for them well into adulthood?

As to your question, AN. That’s a very difficult situation, and I have a very intimate experience with it.

My sister and I ran with some pretty wild kids when we were growing up, but by the age of 15, I had sobered up, gotten out of HS (California’s Proficiency Exam — the best thing I’ve ever done), and began working. The week after I turned 16, I started attending JC as a business major. Leaving HS (and all its bad influences — this, even in an “upper middle-class” neighborhood/school), working, and attending classes that I took by choice, are what made me succeed in life. My sister, OTOH, made other choices, and she never held a job for more than a few months, at most. She was an alcoholic, and bounced from house to house, as she wore out her welcome with anyone who tried to help. Why? Because she refused to help herself.

For those who’ve never experienced what it’s like to have an abusive, alcoholic/addict in the house, it would be diffucult to understand how destructive these kids can be to a household, and why some people choose to “kick their kids out of the house.” These parents are not being unkind, but often are led to this decision because they have been verbally and physically abused for years, or they have had their belongings stolen and/or sold off to raise drug money, or they have had shady drug dealers and other sorts brought into their home, even when they’ve asked their kids not to do this. They’ve picked up their kids at jail in the middle of the night, they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on counseling and drug rehabs, all to no avail. Oftentimes, their marriages have crumbled under the pressure of it all, and the relationships with their other kids (and the kids’ relationships with one another) are strained, or non-existent.

Anyway, my parents had done everything they could to help my sister, but she spent her life on the road,, and in and out of various people’s homes, and we only heard from her when she wanted money (once or twice a year). If her request was denied (because we knew where it would be going, and offered to pay bills directly, but not give cash), she’d go on a rampage, shouting “F— you!!!,” cursing us out in a mad rage.

Back in 1994, I came down from LA to visit my mom in SD, and we were up late at night discussing my sister’s situation. It was around 2:00 a.m., when I told my mom, “you just have to learn to let her go,” and she cried, “you don’t understand…it’s so hard to do that when it’s your baby.” Then, the phone rang, and without answering it, we knew exactly who it was. The coroner called to let us know that my sister was found dead on a busy road in Vegas. She was stumbling drunk in the middle of a busy road, when an innocent driver of a truck hit her.

Even with this experience, and similar experiences of other families with whom I’m very close, I would still elect to kick my kid out if they refused to be a contributing part of the family. Sometimes, the loss of one is better than the loss of all. Sometimes, a person is determined to self-destruct, and there is nothing in the world that can bring them back. If there were easy answers, there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of families anxiously looking for them, but I have yet to see people successfully turn these kids around by enabling them to sit at home, drinking and using drugs, doing nothing at all useful (which I think is essential for the humand mind to remain sane), as the parents wait for that miraculous transformation that Eaves mentioned, above.

It’s a sad topic, but too many of us have seen it first hand. There are no easy answers.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=AN]
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.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.[/quote]

Bingo, UCGal. Could not agree more.

Have to add…even if kids are going to college or working, that shouldn’t mean that mom is still doing their laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping, cooking, etc. Perhaps it’s me, but how in the world are these kids expected to be able to take care of themselves when mommy is doing everything for them well into adulthood?

As to your question, AN. That’s a very difficult situation, and I have a very intimate experience with it.

My sister and I ran with some pretty wild kids when we were growing up, but by the age of 15, I had sobered up, gotten out of HS (California’s Proficiency Exam — the best thing I’ve ever done), and began working. The week after I turned 16, I started attending JC as a business major. Leaving HS (and all its bad influences — this, even in an “upper middle-class” neighborhood/school), working, and attending classes that I took by choice, are what made me succeed in life. My sister, OTOH, made other choices, and she never held a job for more than a few months, at most. She was an alcoholic, and bounced from house to house, as she wore out her welcome with anyone who tried to help. Why? Because she refused to help herself.

For those who’ve never experienced what it’s like to have an abusive, alcoholic/addict in the house, it would be diffucult to understand how destructive these kids can be to a household, and why some people choose to “kick their kids out of the house.” These parents are not being unkind, but often are led to this decision because they have been verbally and physically abused for years, or they have had their belongings stolen and/or sold off to raise drug money, or they have had shady drug dealers and other sorts brought into their home, even when they’ve asked their kids not to do this. They’ve picked up their kids at jail in the middle of the night, they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on counseling and drug rehabs, all to no avail. Oftentimes, their marriages have crumbled under the pressure of it all, and the relationships with their other kids (and the kids’ relationships with one another) are strained, or non-existent.

Anyway, my parents had done everything they could to help my sister, but she spent her life on the road,, and in and out of various people’s homes, and we only heard from her when she wanted money (once or twice a year). If her request was denied (because we knew where it would be going, and offered to pay bills directly, but not give cash), she’d go on a rampage, shouting “F— you!!!,” cursing us out in a mad rage.

Back in 1994, I came down from LA to visit my mom in SD, and we were up late at night discussing my sister’s situation. It was around 2:00 a.m., when I told my mom, “you just have to learn to let her go,” and she cried, “you don’t understand…it’s so hard to do that when it’s your baby.” Then, the phone rang, and without answering it, we knew exactly who it was. The coroner called to let us know that my sister was found dead on a busy road in Vegas. She was stumbling drunk in the middle of a busy road, when an innocent driver of a truck hit her.

Even with this experience, and similar experiences of other families with whom I’m very close, I would still elect to kick my kid out if they refused to be a contributing part of the family. Sometimes, the loss of one is better than the loss of all. Sometimes, a person is determined to self-destruct, and there is nothing in the world that can bring them back. If there were easy answers, there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of families anxiously looking for them, but I have yet to see people successfully turn these kids around by enabling them to sit at home, drinking and using drugs, doing nothing at all useful (which I think is essential for the humand mind to remain sane), as the parents wait for that miraculous transformation that Eaves mentioned, above.

It’s a sad topic, but too many of us have seen it first hand. There are no easy answers.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=AN]
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.[/quote]
I’m not Eaves… but I’ll answer for myself on this.

I know plenty of folks who live with their parents and aren’t deadbeats either… they work and/or go to school, they help with household duties. That’s a symbiotic relationship. Family working together…

Deadbeat by definition is a parasite… someone who takes, but doesn’t contribute. I’ve seen lots of grown kids in their 20’s who fit that definition. Any money they earn is 100% theirs. They eat the free food, have mom do their laundry, they don’t help with the day to day running of the household (financially or by doing chores.). In fact I dated a guy like that – at age 32 he was still living at home and had no concept of what it was like to pay utility bills… when he was laid off he was unwilling to get himself to interviews if there was the slightest bit of inclement weather… We broke up because I was unwilling to be his mommy.

We have a nephew who’s 31 and living with his folks. He’s working on his 2nd PhD in History as a way of avoiding getting a real job. He’s divorced because his ex-wife got tired of supporting him. (He got married in grad school – while still on the parents dime.) She was going to school and working… but he couldn’t be bothered to get a job.

So… would I kick out a deadbeat (by my parasitic definition)… Yes. It would be painful, but I’d do it.

But I’m hoping to raise my kids NOT to be deadbeats. They contribute now – even in 2nd and 4th grade. Chores are done… which helps them be part of a household AND gives them skills for when they’re on their own.

Would I kick them out if they were working towards goals and contributing to the household… No. I’m a big fan of extended family working together. Heck we wouldn’t have built the granny flat if I weren’t… But it should be a symbiotic relationship – not a parasitic one.[/quote]

Bingo, UCGal. Could not agree more.

Have to add…even if kids are going to college or working, that shouldn’t mean that mom is still doing their laundry, cleaning, grocery shopping, cooking, etc. Perhaps it’s me, but how in the world are these kids expected to be able to take care of themselves when mommy is doing everything for them well into adulthood?

As to your question, AN. That’s a very difficult situation, and I have a very intimate experience with it.

My sister and I ran with some pretty wild kids when we were growing up, but by the age of 15, I had sobered up, gotten out of HS (California’s Proficiency Exam — the best thing I’ve ever done), and began working. The week after I turned 16, I started attending JC as a business major. Leaving HS (and all its bad influences — this, even in an “upper middle-class” neighborhood/school), working, and attending classes that I took by choice, are what made me succeed in life. My sister, OTOH, made other choices, and she never held a job for more than a few months, at most. She was an alcoholic, and bounced from house to house, as she wore out her welcome with anyone who tried to help. Why? Because she refused to help herself.

For those who’ve never experienced what it’s like to have an abusive, alcoholic/addict in the house, it would be diffucult to understand how destructive these kids can be to a household, and why some people choose to “kick their kids out of the house.” These parents are not being unkind, but often are led to this decision because they have been verbally and physically abused for years, or they have had their belongings stolen and/or sold off to raise drug money, or they have had shady drug dealers and other sorts brought into their home, even when they’ve asked their kids not to do this. They’ve picked up their kids at jail in the middle of the night, they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on counseling and drug rehabs, all to no avail. Oftentimes, their marriages have crumbled under the pressure of it all, and the relationships with their other kids (and the kids’ relationships with one another) are strained, or non-existent.

Anyway, my parents had done everything they could to help my sister, but she spent her life on the road,, and in and out of various people’s homes, and we only heard from her when she wanted money (once or twice a year). If her request was denied (because we knew where it would be going, and offered to pay bills directly, but not give cash), she’d go on a rampage, shouting “F— you!!!,” cursing us out in a mad rage.

Back in 1994, I came down from LA to visit my mom in SD, and we were up late at night discussing my sister’s situation. It was around 2:00 a.m., when I told my mom, “you just have to learn to let her go,” and she cried, “you don’t understand…it’s so hard to do that when it’s your baby.” Then, the phone rang, and without answering it, we knew exactly who it was. The coroner called to let us know that my sister was found dead on a busy road in Vegas. She was stumbling drunk in the middle of a busy road, when an innocent driver of a truck hit her.

Even with this experience, and similar experiences of other families with whom I’m very close, I would still elect to kick my kid out if they refused to be a contributing part of the family. Sometimes, the loss of one is better than the loss of all. Sometimes, a person is determined to self-destruct, and there is nothing in the world that can bring them back. If there were easy answers, there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of families anxiously looking for them, but I have yet to see people successfully turn these kids around by enabling them to sit at home, drinking and using drugs, doing nothing at all useful (which I think is essential for the humand mind to remain sane), as the parents wait for that miraculous transformation that Eaves mentioned, above.

It’s a sad topic, but too many of us have seen it first hand. There are no easy answers.

[eavesdropper]

[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?

[eavesdropper]

[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?

[eavesdropper]

[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?

[eavesdropper]

[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?

[Author]

Posts