It also doesn't matter if the other "legal" resident likes it or not. It becomes a domestic issue at that point and the law leaves it to the two parties to argue it out but the non-resident has to hit the road in the meantime.

I think it's a DRASTIC scanario but I have heard some pretty awful adult child horror stories and in some
(some,not all) cases I believe these people would be JUSTIFIED to have the adult child removed from their home and if the Bio Parent don't like it let them move out with them!

And no I'm not a lawyer but I do know the local laws.

"The children are grown, but this is the woman he (presumably) wants to spend the rest of his life with, and her feelings should be his priority."

That statement really says a lot, and it's not very nice at all. "The rest of his life" used in this sentence implies that a person's children ---in contrast to step-parent--- are NOT a part of "the rest of" their parent's life. And that the bond between a new spouse and the children's parent is somehow of a superior and more durable kind than the parent-child bond. Regardless of what you may feel about living arrangements or particular kinds of assistance for said children, they do not magically disappear somewhere completely separate from their parents' "rest of their lives" at any age, nor in deference to a step-parent (or anyone).

I continue to be flabbergasted at the hubris and illogic of somehow a second spouse becoming "more important" than a person's flesh-and-blood children. Who was there first? Who did the parent co-create and bring into this world? Who literally carries part of that parent inside their every molecule? Call me 'blasphemous' (or, as a child of divorce, merely cynical about the institution of marriage), but I hardly think that the combination of courtship + a piece of paper + a name change + a piece of metal on someone's finger automatically grants that person the right to feel themselves a superior or more 'permanent' entity over their spouse's children. And it certainly doesn't give a person the right to imagine that the children will disappear "for the rest of his life".

I'm all for considering everyone's needs equally, and not putting any one person above the other wherever possible. Seeking fair and harmonious ways to get everyone's needs met unless it is absolutely 100% impossible to do so. If it comes down to having to make an either-or choice, it seems proposterous to me that the step-parent should automatically expect to be "first".

OK, assuming your legal advice is correct (apparently Ima only polices the board for legal advice given by moms), does it apply to situations where Dad, Dad and SM togethor, own the home???? Most people in this country live in owner occupied homes, not rentals. And even if it were legal, I think anyone considering it is in for serious relationship issues.

In my state, it is a lot more difficult to evict people. A relative of mine owned property and rented it to four guys, who one by one moved out and were replaced with four other people - without consulting the owner. Not one of the occupants' names was on the lease, and the people whose names were on the lease were long gone. In addition, for the last few months the tenants were there, none of them paid rent. It still took months and a court hearing before she was able to evict them.

serenity summed it up so perfectly with this sentence:

"I continue to be flabbergasted at the hubris and illogic of somehow a second spouse becoming "more important" than a person's flesh-and-blood children."

Serenity, my point was not that his children should be pushed out, it was that the woman he is married to should be his first priority BECAUSE THESE ARE ADULT CHILDREN.

If a parent is ALWAYS supposed to put their kids first, even when they are adults, then it works both ways, and the parent should expect his children to always put HIM first!! Well, good luck with that!

Don't you think once children are grown the husband-wife relationship should be a priority, and take precedence over what adult children want/expect? I just do not understand this attitude that parents need to sacrifice what they want all their lives and that children should always be their first priority. It does not make any sense to me. This is normal and understood when they are minors, of course they should come first. But not once they are adults!!!

kkny: do you know if your ex's S.O. ever rewrites history and tries to present herself as a co-contributor?

Recently, ever since the Oct. 2007 wedding which made my SM "legit", she now feels it appropriate to re-write history. I have heard her on more than one occasion completely misrepresent the facts of just how much a "contributing partner" she has been. Referring to a time several years back when *my DAD* was paying two mortgages after buying a house and waiting for the old one to sell, SM has balls-out LIED to people by phrasing it: "WE were carrying two mortages for 18 months". Like SHE had any part in any of these expenses, or like she ever contributed ANY money to ANY household expense whatsoever (besides her clothes, her hair, her car, her nails). It's like she now fees like she has this magical wife power to not only control things henceforth into the future but also to rewrite the past and pretend she has done things which she has not.

I think the very fact that she feels this need to misrepresent her "stake" in the house, etc. reveals her awareness that if she wanted to be taken seriously and have respect in the eyes of others as my Dad's "partner", that she should have offered to chip in some more. But then again why should she, when all she needed was my father's last name on an official document to go back and artificially rewrite some respectability into her role by fabtricating contributions she never made?

I'm not saying that JUST BECAUSE she never contributed money to my dad's home that she automatically has no rights to respect. Just that it makes it so much harder to take her seriously in any of her (very numerous and frequent) attempts to establish that she is somehow "owed" things, or respect. Respect, also, being extremely hard to feel towards her when she LIES about contributions she never made because she knows that she SHOULD HAVE made them.

And by the way, the above goes for bio children as well. Ask a few people in nursing homes where the children they sacrificed everything for are, many of them are lucky to get a Christmas card. I've heard some really ugly, sad stories. It would behoove everyone to make sure they have a good relationship with their spouse, because all too often, children don't step up to the plate in the time of need and the spouse is the only one to rely on.

Should husband-wife relationship take priority? It depends. If husband and wife have tickets to show, and adult kids want them, it is up to H and W. What if adult child is 19 (some here consider that adult and dont let the door hit you on the way out), I think parent should help with college. If SM disagrees, it is a problem.

And I agree -- this argument that SM will always be there and childre wont is not only arrogant but almost comical considering dad has likely been divorced at least once.

"That statement really says a lot, and it's not very nice at all. "The rest of his life" used in this sentence implies that a person's children ---in contrast to step-parent--- are NOT a part of "the rest of" their parent's life."

My children will be my children for the rest of my life. My husband is the person I chose to spend the rest of my life with. There IS a difference. No, my husband does not become more important than my children, nor does he expect that. But, when it comes to my adult children, my life with my husband is more of a priority than taking care of adult children that have their own families and should be taking care of their own families, not expecting me to take care of them. What happens when a parent puts their adult child before their spouse and when the adult child FINALLY gets it together and leaves to have their own life? Well, when the spouse has enough and leaves, then the parent is alone, without their life partner. Do you think those adult kids will give a crap that their mom or dad has made that sacrifice? Seriously doubtful.

Petra is right: "If a parent is ALWAYS supposed to put their kids first, even when they are adults, then it works both ways, and the parent should expect his children to always put HIM first!!" That rarely happens. Maybe a child that is also alone will spend time with a lonely parent, but if they have a spouse and kids, they are not likely to spend all their free time doing for the parent that sacrificed for them.

Serenity,

I dont think Xs SO misrepresents finanical situation. I think she is busy misrepresenting that she did not have affair with X and that I had affair(s) while married. Xs family and close friends still talk to me and say this is laughable.

As much as Ima laughs at me, I do have contractual arrangements that Dad must provide for DD. Rather than taking CS for a few short years, I made certain DD would have college, car, and inherint home. Dad wanted to maintain current lifestlye. I wanted DD to be taken care of.

Yes...in the state of Georgia it means that exactly. Even if both names are on the home. The law looks at it like it is their duty to remove the "Non-resident" and then leave it up to the two joint residents to battle out their disagreements over it.

They (county,cops,constable) only concern themselves with the party whoes name is NOT on the property,lease or whatever. It only takes ONE member who has some legal ownership over the property to make that call. The two legals do not have to agree in order for the third party to be removed.

All that is needed here for an eviction is the fee and thirty days eviction notice. The party needs thirty days to find a new residence.

"And by the way, the above goes for bio children as well. Ask a few people in nursing homes where the children they sacrificed everything for are, many of them are lucky to get a Christmas card. I've heard some really ugly, sad stories. It would behoove everyone to make sure they have a good relationship with their spouse, because all too often, children don't step up to the plate in the time of need and the spouse is the only one to rely on."

My dad has taken care of my step mom for the last 12 years while she's been in a permanent vegetative state after she suffered a brain aneurysm. She has three adult children that she sacrificed for. In fact, she (with my dad's help), either helped them with college or starting their own business. Two of them moved in with my dad and step mom to 'get back on their feet', one brought his wife and small child. So, where are they now that mom needs care 24/7? Well, they had time to hire an attorney and sue my dad to try to lay claim to the family business that HE inherited from his dad. But, none of them have time to come by and help take care of their mother, nor do they even call to ask if she's still alive. (I'm pretty sure they'd have life insurance policies on her life if they can get it though)

She is being cared for by her fourth husband (my dad) and her step child. WHERE ARE HER KIDS????

I find that difficult to believe Doodleboo. But go ahead and advise people.

The OP said that she has a "fairly strong marriage" and she wants "to keep it that way". I think that it's only natural for her to want to protect a stable home life.

She most likely has invested in all aspects of her marriage and family life, and she is obviously concerned about what might happen now.

I think that it is admirable that she didn't say anything critical about her husband or kids when she asked for help.

She didn't say that she should come first over the kids.

I think that she needs to think about what has made this a "fairly strong marriage," and discuss this with her husband. How do they continue to make their relationship strong under the new circumstances?

They can work together on this, hopefully. It doesn't have to be "my way or the highway" for either of them.

I know that many posters on this site have had bad experiences when adult kids have moved back home, and I can certainly sympathize with them.

I hope that for OP that whatever is causing her "dismay" will be temporary.

Ima, I am truly sorry about the misery some of the people in your life have to deal with. But if your SM had the aneurysm while she was living with husband number 1, 2 or 3, would they have cared for her? I dont think you can extrapolate from your experience to every family situation. And I am aware of situations where elderly person gets sick and his SO disappears.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not KKNY. It's how it is here. It may be different in other states but in our state it falls under the renters/homeowners rights. Cross my heart. I have no reason to lie.

"As much as Ima laughs at me,"

I don't laugh at you. I also don't criticize that you get all your daughter deserves. I don't suggest your ex's SO deserves any respect.

What I find humorous is how you spend your time here, day after day, criticizing SM's and making generalized statements about SM's when you don't have any connection with SM's. You are not a SM. Your daughter does not have a SM. Your situation is NOT similar to anyone else's here.

Sure, you have a right to have an opinion. I can have an opinion on long term marriages, but then again, if I make a comment on long term marriages, I am told I haven't been married that long so what do I know?

I am flabbergasted that so many of you posting here on this thread seem to lack common sense. Look, if an adult child, with his wife and two toddlers, needs to move home because they are in a financial jam, it does not matter if it is dad and mom, dad and stepmom, or mom and stepdad. BOTH adults whose home will be disrupted need to be consulted and in agreement before allowing son and his family to move in. I'm speaking as both a biomom and a stepmom.

Having a family of 4 move in with you is no small disruption. Rules, boundaries and a firm move-out date are absolute musts. Why is this becoming such a big deal here?

My DD has Dads SO. Many people here identify themselves as fiance etc. Which I consider about the same thing. If all the SM crowd here wants to consider is the opinon of other SMs, so be it. But I have as much right as you to post.

"It would behoove everyone to make sure they have a good relationship with their spouse, because all too often, children don't step up to the plate in the time of need and the spouse is the only one to rely on."

If your goal is to make sure you are taken care of when you are old, I would think it would behoove people (especially women, who generally outlive their spouses) to make sure that they have a good relationship with their kids, because all too often, when they reach their "time of need" their spouse has already died.

I don't put my children first because I want something out of them. I don't expect them to "pay me back" by putting me first. I would hope they would "pay me back" by always putting their children first.

Just to clarify: the point I've taken up to argue against isn't the one about how much or little material aid (or housing) a parent should give their adult kids (b/c that will vary from person to person, based on many factors, and there are plenty of valid arguments on all sides of that question). And I'm also not arguing about who should "always" be "first', b/c in my opinion there are far more ways than not to ensure that everyone can get their needs met without having to put anyone "above" someone else, ***IF*** all parties are willing to be flexible and compromise. My point was specifically in reaction to the *justification* that was being given as to WHY the step-parent oughta be "first", which was that the step-parent was going to be a factor "for the rest of [the bio-parent's] life", suggesting that the kids were not going to be. It's one thing to be against pampering adult children (however that's defined) or taking them in for extended periods as a specific belief set in itself. It's not necessary to bolster that belief with an implication that by nature, somehow, the kids are inherently less important or deserving of consideration. That was my bone to pick: the MEANS used to rationalize the belief and the subsequent "ranking" that establishes one party as inherently superior in status to an inferior party. I don't believe in that principle, even from my perspective as an adult daughter. If the issue is not being forced from the other side, I would never consider myself automatically "superior" to or more important than my step-parents just because I am the blood offspring of my parents. But if a step-parent is going to force my bio-parent into an either-or choice based on what s/he believes as their place as "first priority", that's when I acutely question what I feel to be an illogical fallacy.

btw, as a side-point: for every neglectful adult child who sticks their parent into a nursing home and never visits, there is a also somewhere else an adult child who takes care of not one but BOTH of their parents b/c the parents are both elderly and CAN'T take care of each other. There's no reason to assume that the spouse will be any more likely ---or ABLE--- to care for the ailing bio-parent just because they live in the same house. In a situation where one spouse is much younger, it is often the case that the timing means their own parents may have to be cared for at the same time. If the younger spouse is not fortunate enough to have a sibling to take that responsibility and/or enough money to make other arrangements, then the spouse will have no choice but to care for his/her parents and the adult stepchild will have to come in to care for the bio-parent.

When responses start spewing dislike of stepchildren, that advice is likely more limited to a specific family.

And PS one of my favorite comments was

"Also, how do you and his wife get along? I hear alot of step parents have problems with adult step daughters or the wives of the Step son's. Women can be catty like that."

Was the inference that SMs are never catty???

"Ima, I am truly sorry about the misery some of the people in your life have to deal with. But if your SM had the aneurysm while she was living with husband number 1, 2 or 3, would they have cared for her? I dont think you can extrapolate from your experience to every family situation. And I am aware of situations where elderly person gets sick and his SO disappears."

I agree. It is possible husband 1, 2, or 3 may not have cared for her. They all divorced her. BUT HER KIDS HAVE BEEN HER KIDS THE ENTIRE TIME. WHERE ARE THEY???? She was there for them when they needed her... in fact, my dad has been there for her daughter and all her grandkids even after she got sick. They not only abandoned their mother, they stabbed my dad in the back too.

Just pointing out that blood is not always thicker. Just pointing out that putting bio kids first does not guarantee their loyalty or devotion or that they will even be thankful, let alone return the favor.

Tamar- HAHAHA. I know right? It seems so simple but it just flies over so many heads.

If the kids are minors reposibilitie is owed after that it should be jointly decided on both homeowners whether or not the adult child moving in is appropriate.

It has nothing to do with rank and everything to do with rights. My girls can come to us for help any time and we will do all we can WITHIN REASON to help them out. There will be boundaries, rules and deadlines and if they have a problem being an adult and following the boundaries,rules and deadllines they can move out.

We love our kids but will not let them constantly disrupt the sanctity of our home. If they need a little boost that's one thing but that little boost turns into MOTEL 8 really fast if everyone isn't very clear on the game plan up front. Then comes financial issues and marital struggles. Not going to happen with J and I. That's our decision and it's our right to make it.

No all women can be catty. You tend to bring ALOT of Catty out in people....case in point.

My point was when people here on this site get catty I can shut my computer off. Cattyness in my own would not be tolerated.....ever.

Step Moms can be catty. I can be DAMN catty but this is my home and if I want to be catty in it I have that right:) A stranger coming into my place of comfort and coping an attitude with me would not fair well and would find their name on next months evictions notice list.

Life is too short for the BS and like it or not there are alot of people out there Bio and Step who would agree with that. Many parents boot their deadbeat kids out every day....gasp!

"My DD has Dads SO. Many people here identify themselves as fiance etc. Which I consider about the same thing. If all the SM crowd here wants to consider is the opinon of other SMs, so be it. But I have as much right as you to post."

How often does your daughter visit her dad and his SO in their home? Outside their home? From what you say, the majority of her contact is with dad, away from SO. How is that the same or even similar as a 'fiance' that is going to be a SM that is in the home where the child is visiting or living?

I never said you don't have a right to your opinion, but just like you would point out to me when I offer mine on long term marriages, I think you might know more if you were actually in a step family situation.

I think if you raise children properly, they will step up to the plate and help you when you are old and in need. if you raise them properly, they will behave fine and contribute when they are adults. If OP worries that stepkids will behave like morons and destroy her family life, then does she supsect her DH did a poor job raising them? was he a bad father? OP also mentioned that she PARENTED SS, so i assume she did a good job. then why would she worry how SS is going to behave?

We don't know exactly what OP is worried about (ie. behavior, etc). We only know that she is dismayed that the adult son and his family are moving in.

She could have done an excellent job raising the son, but there are three other people besides him moving in. What if she doesn't get along with the son's wife? What if the grandkids misbehave a lot? Maybe it's not a behavior issue at all with any of them. What is the cause of the dismay? Again, we don't know.

I hope that OP writes again with more details.

Company and fish stink after 3 days. It's true. Even if they were the most well-behaved people in the world, a married couple craves their own home. There will be conflict between the 2 married couples.

I don't know if the OP is watching this thread or not, but I suspect your DH will tire of them living there. They don't anticipate any problems, but he'll see.

It appears all this arguing is a moot point since the OP registered, asked the question and left.

I think Doodle knows what she's talking about regarding the eviction. My DH is long term law inforcement so I asked him what the law is here (Alabama) and he said the same thing. Of course other states could be different.

Neither of us want adult children/grandkids moving in with us regardless of if they are bio or step. If it were an absolute necessity we would let them but it would have to be more than mis-managing their funds or wanting things easy. We let my SS stay here for a short time when he divorced and it certainly wasn't any fun. Then he moved out, soon got a DUI and couldn't pay the fine. My DH refused to get him out of it like he had done several times before and consequently he spent 6 months in jail. When he got out there was no offer to stay here again. He managed to figure it all out and now says that was the best thing that ever happened to him. We get along well with all 6 of ours (3 each) and any of them would take care of us IF it was necessary but we hope that never happens. It would be a last resort. Not many people care about someone moving in with them. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

Gajopa,

I accept this is your opinion, but when other SMs ask why cant the kids move in with mom, it has a different slant.

I'm with Tamar on this one. It doesn't matter which is the bio-parent and which is the step. The issue is that the home is both of theirs (whover is doing the actual financing: minor children do not generally contribute financially to a home but no-one would dispute that it is, indeed their home) and there is a status quo- husband and wife and 15 y.o. In my opinion ANY party who wants to change that status quo has to have the agreement of the others. I would not condone the wife moving in any family members of hers unless the husband was in agreement. And if the 15 y.o wanted to move someone in and the adults objected I doubt there would even be a discussion here.

iamommy said: "Just pointing out that putting bio kids first does not guarantee their loyalty or devotion or that they will even be thankful, let alone return the favor."

there is no guarantee but in decent families (or at least majority of them) children are raised properly and grown children are loyal or at least try to do their best. If children are not thankful and are not helping their parents, then parents did something wrong. Of course there are exceptions. Some decent families have criminal kids etc But those are exceptions.

loladoon, children (grown or not) are not exactly a company. when i come to my parents' house I am not regarded as company. We are family.

FD, that is right. There is no guarantee. That is the point I am trying to make. As I said earlier in the thread, helping kids depends on the kid. Some kids deserve, some not so much. (what about kids that have burnt their bridges?) Some parents are in denial when it comes to some of their kids. They don't want to face that they have raised a child that is irresponsible or they don't see things for what they are. I'm not saying that is the situation with OP, but it does happen. Then there are some really great kids that ARE responsible and probably not be a problem to have living there. The problem may be that one of the adults doesn't want ANY changes in their life.

The rights of the people affected (dad, SM and 15yo) should be considered first. As Colleen (and others) have said, it would be the same if SM wanted to move someone in, dad has a right to have a say. You kids are ALWAYS going to be your kids, that's true. But when they grow up, get married and/or start their own family (not 18-19 year olds) and you are remarried, then you have more of an obligation to your minor children and spouse than to an adult child that has a spouse. That doesn't mean you should never help an adult child, because every case is going to be different. The general statements that they are your kids first and that gives them the right to get your help over the rights of a spouse that lives in the home, well, that is a bunch of crap.

and if your daughter moved in, I'm sure you would be happy. If she brings someone else with her, would you be equally as happy? How about a couple of kids too?

Ima, my DD is old enough to have this, but fastforward to the future. If the need arose, I would rather DD and family move in with me than rack up debt she would never be able to get out from under, I would rather she and family move in if it meant her or SIL not being able to finish school.

I would help my DD and let her move in. I am pretty sure her dad would do the same.

My parents and my grandmother lived wiht me and my DD once for about 4-6 months in MY PLACE. it was a situation when they had to be somewhere temporarilly bedore moving. Yes it was disrupting to my routine. My parents are making a lot of noise and I like quiet, they stay up later than i do, they had to sleep on reclining sofa in a living room so i had no living room and could not watch TV, they also ate late at night, my mom cooked in my tiny kitchen and I had no place etc. But they are my family and I would never say "no", and all these minor inconveniences were not that important. that's why i think OP's DH is fine with his kids moving in. Minor things are not as important as helping a family.

Of course if someone wants to live with permanently it isa different story. but hopefully that's not the case.

I'm not sure what you people are saying. That you are better, more loving, generous people, or have more functional families? FD would you have let your previous soon to be SD and her soon to be husband move in with you two?

You are comparing apples to oranges.

In the situations you refer to there isn't anyone actively trying to undermine you. How you can say they are the same thing? Because they are not.

When people post on this site it is usually because they are full of angst and confusion and they are looking for advice not to have people brag about what they would do in situations that aren't even similar.

And, yes I most certainly do think mom should bear part of the hardship of situations of adult children, their spouse and their children being forced to move home.

"And, yes I most certainly do think mom should bear part of the hardship of situations of adult children, their spouse and their children being forced to move home."

At least you are honest enough to say this, and not cop out with adult children shouldnt be helped, dont need help, etc. And btw in the large majority of cases, mom is the one children of any age live with. Why do you think there are support groups all over with children not living with dad, but less for children not living with mom? This validates my belief that Dads should be very careful as to SM getting house, money etc -- becasue she wont be the one there for the kids.

Why would you assume that there is anyone trying to undermine the OP?

Yes,I think people who wouldn't think twice about having their adult children, or their parents and grandparents, move in temporarily are more loving, generous people than those who would not. I also think people are far more likely to be loving and generous to their biological (or adopted) family than to their stepchildren. There is absolutely nothing in the initial post that implied that the SS was a lazy alcoholic who was planning on sitting around all day doing nothing, and the fact that the father is looking forward to this implies that that is not the case.

What a bunch of gobbledegook that is KKNY. What in the world does my statement of responsibility have to do with honesty. That is a personal value. And anyone who tries to undermine me in my own home will be shown the door...period. BS about SM's too! Good grief woman.

You are closed minded and selfish about SMs, so just hold on to that view. I hope it keeps you warm at night. Even though you aren't exactly young, neither am I, you have a lot to learn about people.

If you KKNY and TOS ever were to become stepmothers, you would definitely treat your stepchildren as second class citizens. One can only speak from what lurks within one's own heart can't they.

I said you were being honest, I am not certain why you took it otherwise.

How would you expect me to view SMs with your statement that children should live with the mom? Isnt that treating them as second class?

Fact is I wouldnt live with or marry someone unless I could treat his children fairly.

KKNY, You couldn't by your own definition treat your stepchildren fairly because you would be a stepmother!

FWIW, I would GLADLY take in either of my stepchildren at any time. They are no less my family than my sister or my uncle, my only living biological relatives. I cared for my mother at the end of her life and I would absolutely be there for either of my kids. They should always know that they can count on me...

coleen, I might not be excited about SD with kids moving in. Of course not. But it is not about being excited. it is about doing the right thing. if they would want permanently live with us then "no". he would not want his kdis to live with him permanently either. But as a temporarilly helping family members, why not? I would welcome by brother with his two kids and lazy SIL to my tiny place if they would be struggling. Would I be happy? No. But this is not about what makes you happy. It is about doing the right thing. the right thing is to help your family.

I probably would not be too happy if DD brings bunch of people to my tiny place. But...This is a family, not neighbours we are talking about. This is not about me excited or not.

I frankly was not excited when my parents (they are not elderly, and my mom was 50 at the time) had to move in into my place temporarilly. But it was a situation that they had to and I had to put my feelings aside and do what is right. And it worked out fine. And yes I was pretty happy when they moved out because I could get to my routine. lol But i am glad I opened my doors for my parents as they open theirs for me any time.

sometimes we have to put up with stuff for the sake of a family.

Sometimes it is time consuming and troublesome to take care of elderly grandparents. But it does not mean we should say 'no" just because it disrupts our routine.

So OP won't watch her favorite TV show for a year. Big deal.

coleen by no means i am more loving or more functional than others. in fact i hate when bunch of people live with me. I like peace and quiet. More so I even like to live alone.

My point all along is not that we have to LIKE when big families move in with us and disrupt our routine. I personally do not like it. My point is that in situation like this we HAVE to do what we do not LIKE. I do not know too many people who LIKE changing adult diapers. I certainly don't. And yet I did it.

I totally support that OP is unhappy about 4 people moving in. I mean it is a big disruption. But it is still the right thing to help them out.

Patriffel,
I know its a dismay from the mere fact the daily routine life will change. And it will be crowded in the house. BUt you have to set guidelines and define a time limit here. Its doesn't matter if its a stepchild, a biochild, a cousin or best friend.
I just had my house usurped for the last month and i had enough. I told my husband ' no more stray dogs, we did our help with two people and now the doors are closed. ' We had two people stay in our house for two different reasons. We set time limits and it worked well but let me tell you , it was a relief when these people left.
Both were in a jam. One lost their job and their apartment but she got on her feet quick and was out in a month. The other i gave her 4 months to get on her feet because her husband booted her out of the house. She has worse issues and i'm glad after 2 weeks she left!
Its nice to help. Its your husbands son and two grandkids so of course he will be thrilled. But i'm sure after a few weeks that thrill will definitely subside. Its only natural. People need their space.
So you need to sit down with your husband and your SS to set a time limit. You tell them its fine but there is a time limit. Set a reasonable time. Now it might be 3 months or more but set the max you can handle and then just deal with it. Its not forever but hey, its a jam, help out a bit , i know you've done your duty but be very open and honest about the time limit and make sure its kept.
If several months pass then scrap it out with hubby and tell him , its been so many months and if no progress is made its abuse. Period. If he wants to help his son and his son is not responsible to fix things in a few months, then he can help his son by finding him another place to live and he can baby sit the grandkids. This is another solution.
I do not know all the details and of course knowing more info will help all of us to give you advice but we'ld like to hear how its going.
THis is not a permanent thing. So do not worry.

It is not smart to bring people aboard a ship if the extra weight is going to take the whole thing to the ocean floor is it? FD you are fortunate in that you make the decisions what happens in your house, it is quite another thing when someone else decides for you, and you can lump it or leave it.

Who is to say it is right or wrong? God? That is another value decision only. I'm pretty sure that when you came home after a long day at work and your lazy SIL was lounging on your couch, in your favorite dress, swilling beer, reading your journal, barking out what's for dinner sis, you would likely have a thing or two to say. And if it continued I am sure you would show them the door.

Moot point isn't it? And easy enough to say what you would do when you have never had to do it.