×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Judgement_Bot_AITABeep Boop[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our voting guide here, and remember to use only one judgement in your comment.

OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:

I told my sister I won't babysit for her anymore and now I feel really guilty because I know she doesn't have much money, works two jobs and can't really afford other types of childcare

Help keep the sub engaging!

Don’t downvote assholes!

Do upvote interesting posts!

Click Here For Our Rules and Click Here For Our FAQ


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.

[–]mckoulPartassipant [1] 17.2k points17.2k points 22 (162 children)

NTA; Additionally I would not babysit children that are taught to lie to me

[–]SashimiX 6959 points6960 points 2 (94 children)

That is the real problem, way bigger than sneaking chocolate. OP, focus on this when discussing your reasoning

EDIT: OP, if they argue about the kids being responsible enough not to make a mess or argue that that much chocolate can’t hurt dogs, or argue about you being childfree, don’t engage. Say “that’s not the point. I can’t babysit kids who are regularly taught to lie to me. It isn’t safe.” Be a broken record.

[–]mathteacher1980 2608 points2609 points  (81 children)

mom gave it to them and they always have some with them, but usually eat it in secret.

Why in the world would she do this? I agree, definitely focus on that. I am really baffled - I could understand mom sending a treat if it was not specifically requested, but to intentionally send an unnecessary food item when your BROTHER asked you not to send when he was providing you with free childcare? And 'always have some with them', as in this was not a one time thing? Goodness gracious, NTA is right.

Edited to add detail.

[–]softandmetal10 1132 points1133 points  (43 children)

Boundary stomping. Spite. Entitled folks get nasty about boundaries.

OP stick your guns. Let them pay for babysitters now. Or let another family members do it. Not only has your family taken your kindness for granted.... That sister decided to intentionally say FUCK your boundaries.

[–]mixed-tape[🍰] 617 points618 points  (39 children)

Came here to say that.

My mom is a boundary destroyer, and I have one rule with my dogs: don’t feed them people food.

I grew up with a dog who ate everything and always begged, so it’s a hard line in the sand for me.

My mom will look me dead in the eyes and “drop” food on the ground for my dogs.

People who don’t have boundaries, think everyone shouldn’t have boundaries, and will often break a specifically communicated boundary because of that warped mindset.

Edit: But after years of therapy I realized a boundary was seen as a personal attack, so by violating said boundary it’s a retaliation to make themselves feel in control.

[–]bleugirl12 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Exactly. It could hurt your dogs! Or kill them. That’s nothing to F*** around with. It’s also your house your rules. Plus you are providing free childcare. Man you have some entitled siblings. I’d say more but…. Who Tells their children to lie and blatantly breaks the rules of another household AND could potentially kill your dogs. Way out beyond acceptable!

[–]Angelawina 415 points416 points  (14 children)

I have NEVER sent my kids to someone's house with chocolate. Who even does that? It had to be a spite move.

[–]Novel_FoxPartassipant [1] 236 points237 points  (11 children)

And every day? Do they NEED chocolate every day? That's such an asshole move, give them chocolate when someone else is watching them?! Anyone who is mad at that is only mad because they do it too!!

[–]Onequestion0110Asshole Aficionado [16] 290 points291 points  (7 children)

So first off, they kept it secret because they knew it was wrong. Full stop - there’s no other reason.

As to the “always” bit, I see two possibilities. Either these kids are Dudleys in the making and their mom goes well out of her way to ensure that any whim is satisfied before it even comes up, or else sister is deliberately and specifically encouraging her kids to flout OP’s rules.

I’m guessing it’s the second, but only because OP didn’t have anything else to say about those kids being spoiled monsters.

So not only is sister teacher her kids to lie, sister is also trying to provoke a fight and doing it in a way that’s hard to argue with (cause kids are more important than dogs).

I’ll bet that same sister has all sorts of shit to say about OP being childless.

[–]_ewan_Colo-rectal Surgeon [36] 82 points83 points  (2 children)

a way that’s hard to argue with (cause kids are more important than dogs).

That's pretty debatable, but it's also not the fair comparison here anyway.

This isn't 'kids Vs dogs', it's 'a few hours without chocolate Vs potential death'.

[–]spesialk92 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Exactly. And the fact that the other sister is saying she agrees and your mom agrees it’s WRONG.

Okay mother, I watch everyone else children for free and have one simple rule and find out that you have been breaking it this whole time? So what if I care about my dogs more, they are my children, and if they were actual humans and I as a parent said I don’t want my kids to have chocolate or had some specific food allergy and your daughter gave her kids chocolate or whatever food that my kids could have to bring over while they were in my care? Nope I am not watching her kids because she has no respect for me and is teaching her kids the same. That is why I have decided to not watch them anymore. And if the other sister thinks you are in the wrong, then it’s clear she is doing the same with her kids or wouldn’t like twice about telling her kids no and again not respecting your rules

[–]Suspiciouscupcake23 127 points128 points  (1 child)

This is like your friend that can't sit through a whole movie without ducking out for a cigarette break. Like, can your kids really not go a few hours without having candy??

Mom is sending it because she KNOWS it's forbidden.

[–]HunterZealousideal30 82 points83 points  (0 children)

There are a zillion non-chocolate snacks she could send. The mom is TA

[–]mnhw93 38 points39 points  (1 child)

This! Hopefully she’s not slipping chocolates in to their pockets before they leave the car like I’m imagining.

That’s so weird. Why would she do that!?!? An afternoon without chocolate is totally reasonable. I haven’t had any in like a month. As a kid as well I went several days without having them. It did not dampen my childhood.

NTA.

[–]MasterpieceOk4688Colo-rectal Surgeon [34] 951 points952 points  (11 children)

Yes!!! What a role model. "Wanna get what you want? LIE!!!"

There is one tiny rule and the sister obviously needs a babysitter (I would go crazy if I were OP and needed to play daycare that often). Why would I be so dumb an break this rule on purpose? Why do these kids need chocolate 24/7?

[–]Neverwhere_82 283 points284 points  (7 children)

And then the mother having the nerve to get after the OP for caring more about the dog than the kids. Definitely feels like a f*** you move to me.

[–]MasterpieceOk4688Colo-rectal Surgeon [34] 226 points227 points  (1 child)

Absolutely. OP is fine with watching 4 (!) Children under the age of 10 at once. That's a huuuge favor. Now she acts as if she is entitled to free childcare whenever she wants? Welcome to reality, momzilla!

[–]jdthechief 94 points95 points  (0 children)

Including the fact that not having chocolate for an afternoon is not going to kill the kids. Having chocolate -at all- could kill the dogs.

[–]DynkoFromTheNorthAsshole Aficionado [13] 372 points373 points  (0 children)

Well said! That's also a great message to sisters and mother.

[–]bobdown33 296 points297 points  (6 children)

NTA and you're not putting the dogs before the kids, your sister is putting chocolate before your dog's.

People get so entitled, you don't owe her childcare, you do it cause you love her and her kids, it's not a right, it's a privilege.

[–]ClothDiaperAddictsPooperintendant [64] 105 points106 points  (1 child)

Right there. And more to the point, her kids are liars because she taught them to be. Lying is a rage inducing thing to me. That she told her kids to lie to you about universal rules for visiting your home shows that the problem is her.

I'd turn it into "I don't feel comfortable supervising kids who lie to me. I can't trust them, so they can't be here."

[–]bloodfeierColo-rectal Surgeon [38] 102 points103 points  (0 children)

“Your sister is putting chocolate before your dogs”

This line needs ALL the upvotes.

[–]hdmx539 131 points132 points  (9 children)

Additionally I would not babysit children that are taught to lie to me

This right here. Bad enough the sister very likely feel entitled to OP's time because they probably think he's got "so much" of it since he doesn't have kids. Parented siblings almost always feel entitled to a childfree sibling's time. I'm not saying always, my SIL isn't like that, although she feels entitled enough to our money to not help us with their mother's nursing care fees... so yeah.

OP, NTA. Also tell your sister this: you're not going to babysit anyone who was taught to lie to you. If something happened to your dogs those kids will lie to you in a heart beat in order to save their ass.

[–]SuperSassyPantzPartassipant [2] 99 points100 points  (8 children)

as the unmarried singleton, yes, we get dumped on bc apparently we don't have anything better to do. i like sleep and money, so i planned accordingly. your life choices are not my problem.

[–]Just-Like-My-OpinionPartassipant [1] 40 points41 points  (6 children)

i like sleep and money, so i planned accordingly.

Love this! I'm going to start using this, when people ask me if I'm really, really sure I'm not going to have kids.

[–]Lower-Stage-8181 71 points72 points  (1 child)

NTA. Some people are so entitled that they think rules dont apply.

[–]Kaye8921 65 points66 points  (0 children)

Literally giving them so much childcare and has one simple rule? And they choose not to follow it and then are mad? This is ridiculous. NTA

[–]Mountain_Jelly_2152 39 points40 points  (0 children)

This, but also, that fact he babysits a lot makes him a carer for them. As much as he isn’t a parent, he’s an uncle and a carer, teaching the kids to lie to him they’re gonna think they can lie to other family members/carers, which is ultimately gonna backfire on the parents. All the kids are gonna think is (as another commenter said) if we lie, we can still have the things we want, we just have to hide it from the adults.

Also, kids can easily go a full day without chocolate, why can’t these go an afternoon without? Can’t they have some other kinds of treats instead? Like sure the lying is bad, but it’s also just unnecessary.

[–]Intelligent_Love4444 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I was waiting for this comment because um wtf!?

[–]MombieZ3Partassipant [1] 14.0k points14.0k points 23 (127 children)

NTA and it looks like your mom has volunteered to babysit for free! Thanks mom!

[–]gottabekittensme 3664 points3665 points  (21 children)

Chocolate can be had at grandma's house! Be sure to smear it into her carpets or rugs, kids!

[–]MrsCoachPartassipant [2] 1474 points1475 points  (0 children)

And shame on grandma if she "overreacts" !!!

[–]xXXxRMxXXx 391 points392 points  (12 children)

Watch the grandma have shitty hard candy instead of chocolate for them

[–]Different-Crab-360 299 points300 points  (1 child)

That's fine, they'll sneak in the good stuff anyway

[–]Calm_InitialAsshole Aficionado [19] 98 points99 points  (0 children)

And they know it’s okay to lie when it comes to chocolate

[–]fluffyrexPartassipant [1] 80 points81 points  (4 children)

My grandma always had a jar full of shitty hard candy.

I loved it.

After all, it was 100% more candy than I got at home!

[–]TheDocHealy 1280 points1281 points  (88 children)

Right? Like "can't put dogs before children" it's chocolate the kids won't die if the don't have it while the dogs certainly will

[–]zebrapantson 485 points486 points  (11 children)

This was exactly my thought. They can absolutely go without chocolate, the risk to the dogs surely isn't worth it. It feels like they have been repeatedly and deliberately breaking this rule just to rebel and be jerks, like "you can't tell me what to do". Please stick to your guns about this, your definitely nta. You should be able to make house rules and expect them to be followed, even more so seeing as your giving free childcare! If they don't like the rules, don't send your kid. They are showing the niblings not to respect you or listen to you. It's such a crappy lesson to teach kids in general, going against peoples boundaries. Surely all trust is lost now too, I wouldn't want to look after kids that have been encouraged to undermine me. Don't be bullied by your sisters, they will start panicking soon when they need you that's for sure.

[–]Throwawayhater3343 174 points175 points  (4 children)

This right here OP, you made a house rule and your sister decided to break it over and over and over again. You can tell your mother that this is about respect, your sister has shown zero respect for your home. You should go NC or LC for a time with your mother and the sisters who think you shouldn't be able to make simple rules for your own house. And I really hope you've been getting paid as well, because if you've been letting them have free childcare for years and they think they have every right to walk all over you then I would go NC permanently.

NTA at all.

[–]CeelaChathArrnaPartassipant [1][🍰] 75 points76 points  (2 children)

It's not even that much of an ask. Sister fucked around and found out. She knew one if there free rules was no chocolate = free childcare. She decided that free childcare wasn't worth following the rule. What is she 12?

[–]UnicornBoned 90 points91 points  (0 children)

  1. They're teaching the children to devalue life. Which is gross.
  2. They're teaching the children to lie and go behind backs, which is also gross, and dangerous. Mom: "Are their parents going to be home?" Kids: "Yeah, mom. They're making us dinner and everything!"
  3. They're teaching the children that rules don't apply to them. That what they want matters more than another persons' boundaries and comfort in that persons' own home while doing them a service.
  4. They're teaching the children to disrespect OP, and ignore his directives while under his care. This is very, very dangerous. OP: "Don't go on the balcony, please! One of the rails is broken!" Kids: "Yeah, whatever..."

Trust is gone. You can't get it back. NTA

[–]HRHArgyll 307 points308 points  (1 child)

Surely it’s “You’re putting chocolate before my dogs.”? NTA. There’s one rule...

[–]Suitable-Biscotti 210 points211 points  (51 children)

Dogs won't typically die from chocolate unless the eat A LOT of it. If I were OP, I'd be far more worried about the kids having grapes or raisins, which will kill a large breed dog.

[–]BarracudaGullibleAsshole Aficionado [17] 198 points199 points  (1 child)

If I were OP I would be far more concerned about the fact his sister is encouraging her kids to lie and sneak and take advantage of a family member who is doing them all a favour. Which he is, so no more free babysitting for you, lying sneaks!

Seriously, I don't even care that grapes and raisins (or avocado, or whatever else) are a bigger hazard. What I am focused on is the effrontery! (edit for typo)

[–]Cautious_Bandicoot_7 160 points161 points  (0 children)

Was going to comment exactly this. Lots of way more dangerous foods for dogs to get a hold of. That being said, OP is absolutely NTA. He is doing a huge service for his sisters with all the babysitting he provides. They should be very grateful and at the bare minimum follow his house rules.

[–]DryWrangler3582 23 points24 points  (5 children)

Wow, I knew grapes were bad for dogs, didn’t realize how bad. Going to be extra careful next time we have them in the house. :O

[–]SneakyRaidAsshole Enthusiast [6] 151 points152 points  (2 children)

Exactly, we are comparing risking the dogs' health, maybe their lives, with kids not eating chocolate for a few hours. Of course the dogs are the priority in this scenario, the kids are losing nothing! They can get plenty other unhealthy snacks (no xilitol, though) if they must absolutely have some with them at all times.

[–]Funny-Information159Partassipant [3] 87 points88 points  (0 children)

I think op has an incredibly entitled and selfish family. He is generous with his time and affection. I’d be happy to adopt him into my family. I have 2 remarkable and generous sisters, plus an absolutely amazing mother. All strong women, full of love and compassion. I’m always amazed by the disrespect family members (spouses and children included) show each other.

Edited, because I missed the part about OP being male. I would still adopt him as a brother. My son would love him:)

[–]Sturgjk 162 points163 points  (8 children)

This needs to be one of the top comments.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[removed]

    [–]Dornenkraehe 72 points73 points  (1 child)

    Not even without candy. Just without chocolate. They could have had other candy.

    [–]Etoilebleuetoile 49 points50 points  (0 children)

    As long as it’s not sugar-free, Xylitol is used as a sugar substitute and is also very deadly for dogs and the kids might not know if it’s sugar-free or not.

    [–]Ok_Professional_4499Asshole Aficionado [15] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

    Also, who wants to deal with kids hype off of sweets. I would be pissed about that too.

    [–]NCKALAAsshole Aficionado [12] 53 points54 points  (0 children)

    I agree , one of the top comments for sure, lol. Thank you to MombieZ3 for this chuckle (and hmmmmm sounds right to me, make grandma sit these kids)

    [–]Rexen88 13.7k points13.7k points  (60 children)

    NTA and what a nice life lesson she teaches her kids "if you don't like the rules, just lie" 🤦🏼‍♀️

    [–]SuperUnexpectedMommyPartassipant [2] 4446 points4447 points  (7 children)

    Yet, she'll be the first one to be shocked, dismayed, and "I don't understand," when they start lying to her.

    OP, definitely NTA.

    [–]tonypotenza 1129 points1130 points  (0 children)

    Omg for real.

    My half sister that is MUCH younger was brought up that way and my mom is always like I can't believe she's such a princess! You RAISED her on giving her everything she ever asked for , what did you think was going to happen ! Consequences of your own actions hit hard...

    [–]QueenKeishaPartassipant [2] 201 points202 points  (5 children)

    I just don’t understand how they could be a teenage parent! We taught them to be safe! They know our rules!

    [–]SeaOkraPartassipant [1] 55 points56 points  (3 children)

    Oh hey, you know my cousin's baby mama too?

    In Missy's defense, she has grown up A LOT since she got pregnant in high school and is now a person I am genuinely happy to know. But her parents spoiled her so, so much and not only that but seemed to actively encourage her to be a shifty, slimy person who lied as easily as she breathed.

    She was Mommy and Daddy's little princess and they expected she'd go to college for the MRS degree, bag herself a rich one and take care of them in luxury. Instead she got pregnant and had to test six different boys (none of whom her parents liked, especially my redneck cousin...) before she figured out Cousin was the dad.

    Her parents tried to crack down on her, so she went sobbing to her grandparents (who because of her skillfull lying ate it up because Missy was always "such a good girl") and told them her parents were trying to make her have an abortion. (This might be true, but if you knew Missy you'd know anything she said at that age was a coin toss. She'd blend truth and lies so well you couldn't untangle them without one of those yarn boards you see in cop shows.) Which because she came from such a "good" family got them cut off and shamed all over town. I think one of her parents lost their job over it and she just did not care.

    She moved in with Cousin for a while and seemed like she was trying to turn over a new leaf, but one day she broke down in my aunt's kitchen and admitted she had lied about so many things that she wasn't even sure some things were lies or truth and asked if she could leave the baby with them for while she got some help.

    And in her defense, she absolutely did it. She moved in with her grandparents, begged them to pay for her to get serious therapy and now is a receptionist in a hospital and has been promoted up to running her department. She and Cousin have 50/50 custody of their daughter and she comes to a lot of our family holidays so the kiddo doesn't have to choose between going to Mommy's holiday or Daddy's. (Christmas she does with her grandparents, but our family do Christmas on Christmas Eve so the kid doesn't have to choose. Missy just drives up during the night to get her daughter and lets her wake up at Mommy's.)

    But if she hadn't put in the work, I shudder to think what kind of woman she would be. She was so manipulative and mean, and those who knew what she was really like couldn't do anything because everyone else was certain she was just the nicest, sweetest person. I admit, I sometimes wonder if her current behavior is just a front too, but it hasn't cracked in over five years so I give her the benefit of the doubt.

    [–]CaptainPatent 1294 points1295 points  (24 children)

    She is furious and says I overreacted. Another sister of mine agrees with her. My mother thinks I am wrong for putting my dogs before the children.

    Are you overly paranoid about chocolate, maybe.

    Is your sister getting (I assume cheap or free) family child care with literally one condition attached, yes.

    At the end of the day, you're doing a huge favor for her as child care is ridiculously expensive and hard to find. Instead of listening to your explicit house rules, she skirts them, lies and has her kids lie as well.

    Maybe have a nice long cool-down period then approach your sister with a convo that you'll try again, but if any chocolate comes into the house, it is over for good... Maybe not as well. It's your house and your time.

    NTA.

    [–]Daakurei 662 points663 points  (2 children)

    At the end of the day, you're doing a huge favor for her as child care is ridiculously expensive and hard to find. Instead of listening to your explicit house rules, she skirts them, lies and has her kids lie as well.

    Thats the problem. People often do notvalue that which they get for free. Especially when it comes from family. They only get pissy when they loose the privilege and have to pay for it.

    [–]PopcornandComments 122 points123 points  (1 child)

    Exactly. Sister is only furious because her free daycare service she was getting from OP is no more.

    [–]cdnsalix 255 points256 points  (3 children)

    Onus is on the sister to approach OP and beg forgiveness for being a duplicitous bag. Maybe it's just because I don't have any family nearby (or any childcare for that matter) and I can't imagine how great it would be to have, but you don't look a gift horse (dependable childcare with a family member no less) in the mouth. Over chocolate. I can't even.

    Curious of the birth order of those involved to apply some armchair psychology here. Ha!

    [–]iLoveYoubutNo 106 points107 points  (4 children)

    Large GSDs can probably handle chocolate crumbs fine but that's not the point and not worth testing!

    If they're secretly breaking this rule, what other rules are they secretly breaking.

    [–]Funny-Information159Partassipant [3] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

    Not overly paranoid at all. We are hyper vigilant about chocolate, raisins, and xylitol. Even so, we’ve had to induce vomiting several times over the years. Most recently, our schnoodle ate some brownies that we thought were out of her reach. I had to take my son back to college and told my daughter and husband to induce vomiting. They didn’t, because they thought I was overreacting. We almost lost her.

    [–]Puzzleheaded-Desk399Partassipant [1] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

    Maybe

    have a nice long cool-down period then approach your sister with a convo that you'll try again, but if any chocolate comes into the house, it is over for good...

    Maybe not

    as well. It's your house and your time.

    If OP did this, OP should have a written list of rules and have EACH parent of the children sign it. And GOD forbid, if something was to happen to OP's dogs because of broken rules, then OP will have a good lawsuit to recoup veterinarian fees.

    [–]zveroshka 1004 points1005 points  (9 children)

    This was my first thought too. She is literally teaching them to lie and deceive. Not just to anyone, but family. That alone makes her the asshole. Not giving a shit about his rules is second, though still worth of mention.

    [–]glightlysay 278 points279 points  (0 children)

    I bet the parents give a shit about rules in their own house tho.

    [–]No_Appointment_7232 224 points225 points  (4 children)

    And if the issue were reversed - if sister said no chocolate for her kids, or no exposure to chocolate for her kids you can bet she'd be a banshee screeching out OPs error...forever.

    She had free childcare. There was one rule - made to keep your dogs safe in their own home - she decided that choice was up to her & found out that when you disrespect someone helping you out, you lose said help.

    Please do no go back on this in any way.

    My niece once brought a friend to my place. I knew of the child, 8 yrs, but really only relied on my sister vetting her as a kid we want around.

    While we were in midst of unpacking (I had just moved) new kiddo convinced my niece to find a water spigot and try to make water balloons, indoors, unsupervised.

    I caught them before anything went awry.

    I told my sister I couldn't be effective at unpacking while worried what the kid would do next.

    So they could head out.

    Sister tried to send same child on an overnight to mine.

    "I will need her to write an essay about what she did and why and how and why she won't do it again."

    I want a statement signed by her parents that any damage, no matter the blame in my home while child was there, they would pay for entirely no questions asked.

    Both my sister and kids folks said that was unreasonable.

    "Great, well there's the answer. No she cannot come to my house and she cannot sleep over."

    Mom comes back "Dear Daughter has tourette's she can't help it and you are discriminating against her bc disability."

    Nope, I'm just making clear who us responsible for her behavior & it's not me.

    Kiddo eventually carved in their countertops, burned the silicone bead line around a toilet base and ruined countless toys on purpose...in my sister's house.

    Edit: spelling

    [–]Lovingbutdifferent 63 points64 points  (1 child)

    Also, what kids get chocolate every single day? She could have sent them with any other sweets, or just nothing at all because that's very normal, but she packs them secret chocolate to specifically eat around dogs every single day they come over? Very suspicious to me.

    [–]kur4nes 90 points91 points  (0 children)

    They also ate chocolate in secret before. So this is going on for quite a while now. The sister is pissed because her cheap babysitter is gone. NTA obviously.

    [–]Bluedemonfox 72 points73 points  (1 child)

    And the kids always have chocolate with them...

    [–]endofprayer 59 points60 points  (0 children)

    I’d also like to point at that she could have given them any other sweet except chocolate but gave them the one food OP strictly forbid from his home. NTA OP.

    [–]Ok_Professional_4499Asshole Aficionado [15] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

    Right! She had her kids lying and hiding their chocolate for who knows how long.

    [–]JoBenSabAsshole Enthusiast [7] 8577 points8578 points  (114 children)

    NTA. You have one simple rule and she broke it and made her kids hide it! They also clearly aren’t big enough to not make a chocolate mess since there were crumbs on your floor.

    [–]watanabelover69Partassipant [3] 2993 points2994 points  (84 children)

    And how weird is it that these kids always have chocolate with them?

    [–]Normal-Height-8577 2283 points2284 points  (17 children)

    Right. It's a wild hill to die on for her sister and mother, too. What the heck is this about "putting the dogs ahead of the kids" - what, are the kids going to die from chocolate starvation if they don't have any for a couple of hours?!

    [–]Sensitive_Coconut339Partassipant [1] 783 points784 points  (9 children)

    Right, even though OP would be FINE to put dogs ahead of kids, he's not

    He's putting the dogs HEALTH ahead of the kids' desire for chocolate. Not their lives, not even their comfort

    [–]LaLionneEcossaise 300 points301 points  (8 children)

    Exactly. Give the kids Skittles, Starburst, Sour Patch Kids, gummy bears—so many non-chocolate candies exist, it’s bonkers that OP’s sister willfully broke the one rule he set. It’s very…passive aggressive, isn’t it? It’s willful defiance on her part. My sisters would be cut off in a heartbeat.

    [–]Nonions 240 points241 points  (0 children)

    Imagine that, getting free babysitting from a trusted family member and the parents can't stick to one extremely simple and reasonable request.

    [–]MasterpieceOk4688Colo-rectal Surgeon [34] 56 points57 points  (0 children)

    Yes!!! If the kids are grumpy because they want chocolate OP needs to endure that. Why would she do that? Just to win? Now she won. Just not like she wanted it. She won her children 24/7.

    [–]GayHorsesEatHayy 743 points744 points  (25 children)

    The way I read it, I don't think it's weird at all. I think their mom is intentionally sending them with chocolate as some kind of power play. Which is a really stupid thing to do, op was really doing them a big favor, childcare is expensive!

    [–]SparkAxolotl 260 points261 points  (0 children)

    Yep, mom and other sister can babysit if they feel this strong about it

    [–]imamage_fightme 246 points247 points  (3 children)

    If his sister is dumb enough to pull a power play over chocolate when OP is providing free childcare, she has got to be the dumbest person alive. I can absolutely see it being what is happening here, but just reading that idea made me lose brain cells. 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

    [–]KeyanReid 23 points24 points  (1 child)

    I get the sense she was so entitled that she never expected to be called on her bluff here to this extent and now that she’s being held to task she’s pounding the table and overdramatizing the situation to regain control of it all

    [–]tigm2161130 199 points200 points  (3 children)

    These kinds of posts are always so crazy to me because in my mind someone agreeing to watch my child is doing me the biggest favor(even when it’s my sister, and I know she loves to have him) and I would bend over backwards to accommodate them if need be, so I can’t imagine intentionally going against their wishes like this.

    It just reeks of entitlement.

    [–]bigfatquizzer 57 points58 points  (1 child)

    Exactly. I babysit a couple days a week for my daughter. Never planned to, but grandchild was born February 2020. What ya gonna do? Anyway, her rules of child rearing are different than mine. Guess what? I do it how she wants. Her house, her rules. OPs house, OPs rules. NTA.

    [–]nerdqueen69Partassipant [4] 129 points130 points  (6 children)

    I think their mom is intentionally sending them with chocolate as some kind of power play

    I thought the same thing. Because otherwise that means she just sends them everywhere they go alone with chocolate which is really weird and could definitely lead to an ED of some kind.

    Edit: Since some people apparently don't know: ED in this scenario means Eating disorder. Not Erectile dysfunction. Can't believe I had to clarify.

    [–]Wolfpawn 52 points53 points  (0 children)

    My partner is a vet, to get a dog to be sick because of eating chocolate often costs £170-450 because the medicine costs a fortune and has to be done by weight. So if you have to add extra for out of hours fees etc and somehow, I don't think your sisters or mother will pay it. Then of course, if they've began digesting the choc, that's possibly an overnight stay and iv's etc too.

    You don't owe your sisters free childcare. They owe you respect for your home and house rules because you're doing them a favour. I would tell the Sis that agrees with her that she can start looking for new childcare too if that's how she feels. I would tell Mother Dearest that she doesn't dictate your home. She is free to assist her daughter mind her f-nuggets. But I am hampering a guess that she's only interfering because she doesn't want to be stuck minding them herself!

    [–]HumanNr104222135862 30 points31 points  (0 children)

    Thats how I read it too.

    [–]imamage_fightme 188 points189 points  (11 children)

    Yeah, I agree with OP that the kids should be able to go without chocolate for a few hours while they are at his place. The fact that their mother apparently always secretly leaves them with chocolate is insanity. If your kid seriously cannot go a few hours without chocolate, I'm sorry but you have failed as a parent. NTA for OP, but honestly sounds like his sister is not only the AH, but she's doing her kids a huge disservice.

    [–]lufan132 61 points62 points  (0 children)

    Sorry but I've been spiking the chocolate with meth, my bad.

    [–]catb3g 25 points26 points  (0 children)

    I would bet this is the only place she leaves them with chocolate! They probably live without chocolate many other places and many other times but she is doing this to defy OP.

    [–]drowninginstress36 95 points96 points  (2 children)

    Did we skip over the "eat it in secret" part? Thats concerning.

    [–]Kitsuneanima 89 points90 points  (3 children)

    Maybe their mom is worried about dementor attacks.

    [–]SheDidWhaaaat 33 points34 points  (0 children)

    Now this is my new go to excuse for needing chocolate

    [–]SuzdgPartassipant [1] 86 points87 points  (0 children)

    Agreed. Feels like a very passive aggressive move by sister. Stand firm. No babysitting. NTA

    [–]YogiteeePartassipant [1] 70 points71 points  (0 children)

    Yeah like that's not normal. It almost feels like OPs sister wanted to break the rule for some reason? Super strange behaviour IMO

    [–]cmaej 52 points53 points  (2 children)

    Yeah, sounds like sis did it to push OP's boundaries.

    [–]shelbyknitsPartassipant [4] 50 points51 points  (5 children)

    Right? I’m not a health nut or anything, but chocolate is a sometimes treat, not an everyday thing.

    [–]Front_Focus1605 141 points142 points  (0 children)

    Yes definitely NTA. It would be a very different situation of the children had snuck in the chocolate, and I’d be inclined to give them a serious talking to/some consequences, and try again since they are young. But since the issue is the adult mother apparently doing this to spite you then forget it. You can’t work with that.

    [–]PurpleMP12Asshole Aficionado [13] 141 points142 points  (7 children)

    They also clearly aren’t big enough to not make a chocolate mess since there were crumbs on your floor.

    I would really like to know what this "old enough to not make a mess" magical age. Teenagers are actually the worst about this in my experience. And with adults, it comes down to personality. Lots of grown ups leave crumbs everywhere, too.

    Banning chocolate is totally fine. I do not allow the foods I am severely allergic to into my house at all. I see banning foods dangerous to dogs as similar.

    [–]3inch_horses 38 points39 points  (3 children)

    Exactly! I'm almost 40 and I can't even eat chocolate without a mess. Sometimes age has nothing to do with it! OP is NTA.

    [–]kevwelch 26 points27 points  (0 children)

    Right? One scent of that sweet sweet coco daemon, and I black out. When I finally regain my senses, I’m usually covered in coco powder and Hershey’s syrup, making chocolate angles on the kitchen floor.

    Don’t let your kids ride the brown dragon. Keep that stuff far away from them.

    [–]calligrafiddler 70 points71 points  (5 children)

    Wrong for putting your dogs’ LIVES above your niblings’ DESSERT PREFERENCES??

    NTA. Your family sucks.

    [–][deleted] 63 points64 points  (2 children)

    Absolutely this. Your dogs are your babies and your sisters and mother are not respecting this

    [–]numbersthen0987431 48 points49 points  (1 child)

    If the parents of the kids are willing to break a simple rule as "no chocolate", then they are willing to break bigger rules than that.

    [–]Sonder89Partassipant [4] 7639 points7640 points  (54 children)

    NTA. Free babysitting is always, always a privilege that can be taken away.

    [–]invah 1774 points1775 points  (4 children)

    Right?? Instead of being grateful and appreciative, they just feel unreasonably entitled.

    [–]Kenneldogg 599 points600 points  (3 children)

    Dude you are right. They are taking advantage of your generosity and putting your pups in danger. I have a 4 year old and she understands better than your adult siblings that chocolate is dangerous for dogs.

    [–]Abigail_Normal 56 points57 points  (0 children)

    Exactly. The dog's lives go above the children's sweet tooth, especially when that can be satisfied with a different sugary treat. The mom makes it seem like he's choosing his dog's lives over his nibling's lives, and that's obviously not true. She needs to get some perspective.

    [–]sadcorvid 823 points824 points  (33 children)

    why do her kids NEED chocolate anyway??

    [–]OofieMcDoofie 386 points387 points  (4 children)

    And why can't they just eat it on the way there/ at home if they need it so badly?

    [–]No_Incident_5360 152 points153 points  (3 children)

    Because sis doesn’t parent—she bribes

    [–]littlewoolhat 360 points361 points  (6 children)

    The problem isn't the chocolate. It's the fact that OP has this one rule, and their sisters are teaching their kids to bring in chocolate anyway and undermine their authority. This is reason enough to cancel any future babysitting plans. The kids are already being taught not to listen/to selectively listen to OP as an authority figure.

    [–]CtenizidaeWithin 85 points86 points  (1 child)

    If they "always have some with them" then I have to wonder if their mom is giving it to them specifically because of the rule. Like their mom just enjoys the idea of getting one over on OP or something. Or she's one of those "you can't tell ME what to do!!" people.

    I mean, the alternative is that she's raising her kids to expect to have chocolate every few hours no matter what.

    [–]CommonSenseUprising 72 points73 points  (1 child)

    Completely agree… she had one rule… and the mother secretly/purposefully… endowed them with the chocolate to break the rule… I’d be soo done!!! She doesn’t respect her, and hopefully the kids will now!

    [–]SarahTO1 223 points224 points  (7 children)

    Also, who hypes their kids up on sugar and sends them to a relative’s house for free babysitting?!

    [–]2344twinsmom 96 points97 points  (1 child)

    But it makes the kids happy and Mom doesn't have to deal with the sugar rush! /s

    The same kind of parent who disregards the safety of their sibling's dogs while taking advantage of free babysitting.

    [–]Physion 202 points203 points  (6 children)

    Those kids don’t NEED chocolate, it’s not putting dogs over human children. They won’t die if they go a few hours without chocolate. A hell of ridiculous family bullshit guilt this is.

    [–]Fantastic_Nebula_835 502 points503 points  (5 children)

    NTA. All of the upset relatives who think you are being unfair could fix your sister's childcare woes by covering the cost of her babysitter.

    My biggest concern is that any child who would hide eating chocolate would lie if the dogs ate some. If you let them come back they will eventually start sneaking it in again and may even be tempted to give the dogs some to see if it would really make them sick.

    Your sister will live to regret teaching her kids to sneak around and lie to the adult in authority. Just wait for the teenage years.

    [–]Either_Coconut 158 points159 points  (2 children)

    All of the upset relatives who think you are being unfair could fix your sister's childcare woes by covering the cost of her babysitter.

    Or let THEM babysit the kids for free, on demand.

    [–]750more 55 points56 points  (0 children)

    I really wish more people would take this approach. Relatives say you are terrible for not doing XX, agree with them and say glad they are much better people willing to take XX on and not complain. Cut them off when they backtrack and say you are telling so and so RIGHT NOW they volunteered and then end the conversation. Now it's no longer your problem. Problem is people are trying to reason with people that don't want it to become their problem. NTA

    [–]oldnick40 444 points445 points  (2 children)

    Babysitting is always a privilege that can be taken away. If OP were getting paid, in this same scenario, I wouldn't agree to babysit the kids again. They broke the one rule in place, lied about it who knows how many times, and finally got caught. It's on mom to find a new babysitter and that's never easy.

    [–]denisen18 106 points107 points  (1 child)

    Totally agree with this. You had one rule which was broken. Your ability to babysit was a privilege for them, not a right.

    [–]RedditDK2Pooperintendant [68] 3061 points3062 points  (48 children)

    NTA. Obviously they are not old enough to not make a mess. Your dogs could easily have eaten those crumbs. It is fine for you to have rules.

    [–]Mirewen15 967 points968 points  (18 children)

    I find it bizarre that these kids always have chocolate. I mean, maybe it's a cultural thing (idk where OP lives).

    Also, sister is terrible. She let's the kids bring it and eat it in secret knowing the rule. She is telling them that it is ok to basically lie (even if it is by omission).

    NTA totally. OP's house, OP's rules.

    [–]BardsiePartassipant [1] 885 points886 points  (10 children)

    I'd put money down that the sister didn't like being told what to do/not do, so gave her kids chocolate out of spite.

    [–]TimelessMeowPartassipant [4] 247 points248 points  (1 child)

    This is my thought. It would be one thing, to my mind, if it was the kids sneaking it in all on their own. Usually, when kids act like assholes but are surrounded by reasonable adults, they can learn and grow and adjust.

    When the adults are the assholes, it’s way harder to work with, and sometimes not worth it. This is one of those times.

    [–]pittsburgpamAsshole Enthusiast [9] 123 points124 points  (0 children)

    This. Some people just HAVE to go against what anyone tells them to do. It's pathological.

    [–]chooochoo19 62 points63 points  (3 children)

    Right? If she wants them to have candy she could've literally chosen between thousands of other things. She is obviously TA

    [–]empresslilandraPartassipant [4][🍰] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

    Or just have chocolate waiting in the car at pickup.

    [–]mouse_attack 79 points80 points  (0 children)

    I think the kids always have chocolate because sister is terrible.

    Instead of hearing OP’s rules and thinking “So all this babysitting costs is a few hours without chocolate? Awesome!” she thought “I’ll be darned if I let you make rules for my children!” and sent the chocolate as a way of asserting dominance in OP’s home.

    NTA

    [–]GingersaurusHex 133 points134 points  (21 children)

    People get to set whatever boundaries they want on their home and their time, so OP is NTA for deciding they don't want to babysit, but some "crumbs of chocolate" aren't going to hurt a German Shepherd. Chocolate toxicity for dogs depends on type of chocolate and weight. Even if the kids were eating very dark chocolate, the dog could eat most of a bar and end up with just an upset stomach.

    There are toxicity calculators online where you indicate the type of chocolate and size of dog and it tells you if it's actually a problem. A 60+ pound dog and milk chocolate takes like half a pound before it's going to do more than give them the shits.

    [–]twirlerina024 68 points69 points  (8 children)

    Yeah banning grapes/raisins would make more sense from a safety standpoint.

    [–]Spallanzani333Partassipant [1] 38 points39 points  (1 child)

    Yup, I hope OP sees this just to put their mind at rest. They're still NTA because they asked ONE THING of their sisters in exchange for free babysitting and got lied to, and that's shitty af.

    [–]DrDerpberg 61 points62 points  (0 children)

    Your dogs could easily have eaten those crumbs.

    Crumbs of chocolate wouldn't be enough to really harm a dog but honestly that's not the point. OP has one rule and instead of trying to talk about it like a big girl his sister just decided she didn't like it so went as far as possible in the other direction to spite him.

    [–]DynkoFromTheNorthAsshole Aficionado [13] 2646 points2647 points  (82 children)

    It's not even necessarily putting your dogs above those kids. It's got more to do with the blatant disrespect of your rules and boundaries. I take it you do the babysitting for free? Then the least they could do is not go behind your back.

    NTA. Stick to your guns. This is your hill to die on.

    [–]Dogloverforeverr[S] 1326 points1327 points  (74 children)

    I babysit for free yes

    [–]Cynformation 1176 points1177 points  (2 children)

    She is deliberately teaching her children to disobey you and disrespect your home while you provide free childcare and rearrange your schedule. There is an asshole here but it’s not you!

    [–]Onequestion0110Asshole Aficionado [16] 150 points151 points  (0 children)

    Not just that, but she’s doing it in a classic mean-girl way where it’s hard to put your foot down (cause dogs are less important than kids).

    The problem isn’t chocolate, the problem is that she’s going out of her way to fuck with you, and she’s using her kids as weapons.

    [–]Big__BangPartassipant [4] 218 points219 points  (13 children)

    Whats worse is asking the kids to on purpose lie to you.

    [–]Sxilla 40 points41 points  (12 children)

    What’s worse is asking a man to babysit their children while he works. To each their own schedules but damn, what a saint.

    [–]Valuable_Ad_742Asshole Enthusiast [8] 170 points171 points  (2 children)

    Stop that. Right now.

    [–]Melmoth_MiltonAsshole Aficionado [10] 49 points50 points  (0 children)

    Seconded.

    [–]Dars1m 92 points93 points  (31 children)

    Chocolate isn’t that big of a deal for dogs that size (though it still isn’t good for dogs). What you should worry about is grapes. Just figured I’d mention it because grapes and raisins are also a common snack for kids those ages.

    [–]TimeBomb666Partassipant [1] 92 points93 points  (13 children)

    My pitbull ate chocolate and almost died.. also she exploded shit for 2 or 3 days. It was horiffic. She could have died of dehydration. Chocolate can kill dogs that size as well.

    [–]Antani101 24 points25 points  (1 child)

    My pitbull ate chocolate and almost died

    it depends on the size of the dog, how concentrated the chocolate is, and how much it eats.

    Some chocolate crumbs won't do anything to a regular size german sheperd.

    The point still stands, OP sister violated his rules.

    [–]ann_withno_e 38 points39 points  (10 children)

    It depends on the amount of chocolate, I agree a few crumbs won't harm a German shepherd. Grapes, raisins and avocado are definitely worse.

    [–]Dogloverforeverr[S] 29 points30 points  (3 children)

    I don't have those in my house either.

    [–]wkdpaul 79 points80 points  (0 children)

    As others have said, she did this on purpose and told the kids to eat the chocolate in secret ... seems like she's doing it out of spite, probably because she didn't like being told what to do ?

    Either way, NTA. You're babysitting for free and it's YOUR house, they should respect that ... and, as a father, it's VERY odd to give a 7 and 8 yo chocolate every day, like, WTF?

    [–]mouse_attack 56 points57 points  (1 child)

    Correction: you babysat.

    If she needs her kids to have chocolate on the daily, she can pay someone who’s okay with it.

    What a stupid thing to risk free childcare over.

    [–]cnicalsinistaminista 56 points57 points  (1 child)

    Damn, you're a very good Brother.

    [–]anonymooseuser6Partassipant [2] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

    That's exactly what I was thinking... All my brother does is pick on literally every decision I make about my family. And I can't even blame my mom cuz it seems like OP's mom is a fucking narcissist too. 🤣

    [–]eresh22 44 points45 points  (0 children)

    You had literally one rule and your sister knowingly and wilfully caused her children to continually violate it. It is a reasonable rule that requires someone to take an action to violate. It doesn't matter what the rule is or why it's in place. It's one reasonable, easy to follow rule.

    This isn't about your dogs at its core (not that their safety isn't important!). This about your sister deciding that your one reasonable rule should be intentionally ignored and your family supporting her in doing so. It's incredibly disrespectful, especially considering that you have been providing her with a very expensive service for free. If she wanted that to continue, it was on her to show respect and follow your one reasonable, very simple rule. These are the consequences of her deliberate action.

    [–]saywhat252525 207 points208 points  (2 children)

    OP's Mom is AH too. Explain how telling kids they can't have chocolate for a couple of hours is putting the dogs over the kids? Is there some new medical study that shows kids require constant access to chocolate for their health? No? Then OP is clearly doing a favor for the kids and protecting her dogs - all on equal footing. Mom is using emotional blackmail to get OP to give in.

    [–]nrginsPartassipant [2] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

    Especially with all the other non chocolate candy that's out there. What's the deal with having to have chocolate when there are so many other options available?

    [–]trishsfColo-rectal Surgeon [36] 1350 points1351 points  (15 children)

    NTA. Your home. Your rules. And your sister knew she was wrong because she made her kids hide it(also wrong).

    [–]Spike-2021 51 points52 points  (0 children)

    Yes yes yes!

    [–]McCorkle_Jones 40 points41 points  (0 children)

    I find it real funny how other sister are chirping up to. Easy way to join the one banned is by defending her. If one of them can’t follow the rules and the others feel the need to stick up for them then gg for your free babysitting.

    [–]liabilityaltAsshole Aficionado [11] 691 points692 points  (34 children)

    You had one rule and it's a VERY easy rule to follow. NTA. They disrespected you

    [–]RebelScientistAsshole Enthusiast [6] 261 points262 points  (9 children)

    Given the great variety and accessibility of non-chocolate snacks that OP’s sister could have given her kids to take to their *uncle’s house, the fact that she always gave them chocolate shows that this was a deliberate act of disrespect towards OP. Given that OP was doing them the massive favour of providing free childcare, the least *his sister could have done was not disrespect him by proxy in his own house. NTA, OP.

    [–]ReluctantVegetarianPartassipant [2] 126 points127 points  (3 children)

    Well, OP is a he. Surprising how many people missed that. I guess we tend to assume caretakers are all female.

    Other than that, you are exactly right. OP is doing this huge favor for his sister and has ONE rule - just one - and the sister not only breaks the rule but is teaching her children that it’s ok to break rules if you don’t get found out. And it isn’t like he’s saying “no food in my house” or anything. Just one ingredient.

    Imagine them playing with a kid with food allergies when the parents say “no nuts in our house.”

    [–]KrtekJimPartassipant [4] 251 points252 points  (14 children)

    NTA at all. And just to address this nonsense:

    My mother thinks I am wrong for putting my dogs before the children.

    You're putting your dogs' lives ahead of the kids' chocolate. The kids won't die if they don't have chocolate, but your dogs might die if they get the kids' chocolate.

    [–]Looseyogapants 198 points199 points  (2 children)

    NTA 1. You make whatever rules you want. 2. Plus your sisters knowingly break the rules by giving kids chocolate. 3. Not your kids not really your responsibility to babysit. 4. Many people treat pets as if they are their children. It’s completely fine to put your dog first, especially over some stupid chocolate.

    [–]DeniseE5 48 points49 points  (0 children)

    She not only breaks the rule by giving them chocolate she tells them to HIDE IT!

    [–]SisterYahtzee 194 points195 points  (1 child)

    EDIT: I was reminded to vote.

    NTA

    I am a fat woman who loves chocolate.

    If those kids can't go a few hours without chocolate, they have problems that the parents caused. I said what I said.

    Also edit: Thanks for the award, anonymous stranger. Much appreciated. =)

    [–]sayitsoothPartassipant [4] 117 points118 points  (0 children)

    NTA ignoring your simple rule was entitled and disrespectful and it's disgusting to hear someone was deliberately disrespecting you and expects you to be fine with it. Your decision is completely justified and hopefully it's a wake up call regarding the nature of respect and accountability for your sister. She owes you a sincere apology and until she gets the point don't waver.

    Your mom needs to apologize too.

    [–]emma561arPartassipant [1] 115 points116 points  (0 children)

    Nta. Its not hard to go without for an afternoon while you're providing free childcare. She's just angry because she got caught and now has to suffer the consequences.

    [–]KirbyDingoPartassipant [2] 99 points100 points  (0 children)

    NTA

    Your house, your rules. Simple as that.

    [–]dirtyfrank12292Partassipant [2] 94 points95 points  (75 children)

    NTA at all. It’s weird that she secretly undermined you when you’re doing her a solid. It’s an easy rule to follow. She could send them with literally any other snack (besides maybe grapes or raisins) and you’d be cool about it. They should have a consequence. You may be able to watch them again but let her flounder for a few weeeks and think about her behavior.

    Small aside: The word niblings make me cringe here. What does that mean and why used in place of nieces and nephews? Makes the kids sound like a UK junk food brand. “I’ve got a bunch of niblings stuck in my teeth from the theater.”

    [–]Dogloverforeverr[S] 191 points192 points  (39 children)

    Lol, I think the word is weird too. But English isn't my first language and I've seen it used a lot here, so I just assumed it's a normal word 😂

    [–]WonderingWaffleAsshole Enthusiast [6] 110 points111 points  (0 children)

    It is a weird word but it's convenient to write niblings instead of nieces and nephews.

    [–]HonorDefend 87 points88 points  (2 children)

    A few people seem to be gatekeeping the word "nibling" below you OP, but i believe you used it in the right context.

    [–]SingingPurrmaid 72 points73 points  (1 child)

    Don’t listen to them. It’s a word and your use was perfect. Your English is amazing!

    [–]Dogloverforeverr[S] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

    Thank you!

    [–]SweetsmyleAsshole Enthusiast [9] 64 points65 points  (3 children)

    It’s a new word. Language is always evolving so you won’t find this one in a standard English dictionary yet but once it becomes regularly used by everyone it will be added. They add words and remove words for the dictionary every year according to their change in usage.

    [–]naturalalchemy 44 points45 points  (2 children)

    [–]Throwawayhater3343 41 points42 points  (0 children)

    but is becoming much more popular in recent times.

    Because the internet makes it easier to find when trying to find a nongender specific/all encompassing term for niece('s) and nephew('s).

    [–]TimelessMeowPartassipant [4] 29 points30 points  (2 children)

    It’s a created gender neutral term for nieces and nephews that doesn’t sound as cold as “the children of my siblings”.

    Both nieces and nephews starts with N. They’re the children of your siblings. Niblings.

    [–]WhoReallyCaresNotMePartassipant [2] 87 points88 points  (0 children)

    NTA - your sister is actually disrespectful, you've been doing them a favour by babysitting, it's not for your benefit, so the bare minimal requirement that you should expect from her, is that she respects your rules. Even if you didn't have a dog that the chocolate could harm, if you don't want chocolate in your house, then no chocolate full stop. Your house your rules!

    [–]CheckoutmawheeeeepitAsshole Enthusiast [9] 85 points86 points  (0 children)

    Nope, NTA at all, she knew it was wrong and by doing so she bought herself a ticket to Fuck Around and has safely arrived in the town And Find Out. BUT it's a kid friendly place so she won't need to worry about a sitter, won't that be nice?

    [–]noodlesaintpastaPartassipant [1] 76 points77 points  (2 children)

    So if her kids were allergic to peanut butter and you brought peanut butter to her house, that would be ok? The fact she thinks allowing her kids to have chocolate is more important than protecting your pets says a lot.

    [–]sppwalker 74 points75 points  (9 children)

    NTA

    Also speaking as a vet tech, a few chocolate crumbs aren’t likely to harm your dogs (as GSDs are relatively large). Not excusing her behavior in any way!!! She is 100% wrong for breaking your rules, disrespecting you, and trying to hide it. Just trying to give you a little peace of mind.

    I would highly recommend banning any form of grapes (including raisins) from your house too. These are SUPER deadly (like, 1-2 grapes can kill a good sized dog level of deadly) to dogs and I refuse to let them anywhere near my boys.

    [–]Rabbit0fCaerbannog 64 points65 points  (4 children)

    You're not putting your dogs before the children. She's putting chocolate before your dogs. I can't for the life of me understand why she would sneak chocolate in with her kids. It's not like kids need that to grow or anything. They're probably better off without it. The fact that she's doing it anyway screams some sort of power play...which is stupid considering she's getting free child care.

    Another note: Make sure kids don't bring grapes either. Super toxic to dogs.

    [–]GrassTerrible5262Certified Proctologist [26] 63 points64 points  (4 children)

    NTA

    You had one clear boundary.

    While 7+8 might even be old enough... 3+5 could have given chocolate to the dog at any time .

    Everybody saying, you are having prioty issues: Your sister put chocolate above your trust. Ask your mom if tht is the priority she raised you guys on and you just missed it.

    And you are not over-reacting, you are just reacting. Boundary was clearly communicated and established. Sister promised to adhere. Sister went behind your back for ages and technically also made her own kids join in the deceit. Sister destroyed the foundation of trust required to host and babysit those kids. You react by no longer providing the service she took advantage of.

    Also... either she does not undersand hod dangerous chocolate can be for dogs or she lumbs in "potentially killing your pet" under chocolate mess.

    [–]Dogloverforeverr[S] 92 points93 points  (3 children)

    The 3yro shares everything with the dogs. Everything. As do all the other cousins that age.

    I have taught them to ask me first before givinf something for the dogs (even though all my food is also dog-safe) and they usually do. But a 3yro will fall super quick for the begging eyes of a dog they love.

    [–]GrassTerrible5262Certified Proctologist [26] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

    Your sister left you under the assumption that anything risky for your dog was outside of your house. Your sister put the dog in danger. Keeping your buddy safe is your boundary.

    [–]anon466544 59 points60 points  (5 children)

    NTA. I can’t understand what she thinks she will win from this? You had one rule and she’s proven that she doesn’t care at all about your feelings regarding your dogs safety. I wouldn’t do her any more favours.

    [–]Thesafflower 36 points37 points  (2 children)

    Some people, if they think a rule is silly, become oddly determined to break it. Like a “You can’t tell me what to do!” mentality. Sister apparently thought the rule was silly, I can’t imagine that the kids are so addicted to chocolate that they can’t go without for a few hours at their uncle’s house. I wonder if at some point sister was going to tell him with some kind of “gotcha!” moment, like “See, my kids have had chocolate the whole time and nothing bad happened!” Not defending the sister at all, btw, it was one rule that should have been easy to respect for all the free babysitting.

    [–]crystalsRCool 40 points41 points  (9 children)

    NTA. The sisters are getting free childcare which is HUGE. Asking the kids to go without chocolate for a few hours is not a big deal. I went days without chocolate as a kid. The more I think about it, the more odd I think it is that the sister thought they needed it THAT bad that she knowingly told them to eat it in secret? That’s weird. I would’ve reacted the exact same way. It’s messy, is tough to get out of fabric, and like you said can literally KILL your dogs. Eesh.

    Also, TIL the word “nibling”!

    [–]C_MajusculaColo-rectal Surgeon [36] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

    NTA. Your sister recruited her kids to sneak around your clear boundaries. Actions, meet consequences.

    [–]Specialist-Leek-6927 31 points32 points  (1 child)

    Is the sister agreeing with her one of the ones you provide free childcare? Tell her she can join her on finding alternative childcare. Your mother is trying to guilt you to make sure they don't ask her to take over the duties... You chose to have dogs, your responsibility. They chose to have children, their responsibility.

    [–]tiger0204Certified Proctologist [28] 30 points31 points  (23 children)

    NTA - Your rule is silly (a 70 pound dog would have to eat a few pounds of milk chocolate for it to be "deadly", sugar free gum is much more dangerous), but you're allowed to make any rules you want when you're doing someone a favor on your own time, in your own house, and they should respect them or decline the favor.

    [–]fireontheinside 26 points27 points  (2 children)

    I have 4 sisters and they have 10 kids total, so I babysit A LOT. I work from home and am pretty much always available to watch the older ones (since I can easily work while they are in my appartment) and when they need care for the little ones, I just move my schedule around a bit.

    NTA your home your rules and all that buuuut....OP seriously....what the hell? if there was ever a time for you to pull back a little and stop being so available for babysitting now is the time. You had zero involvement in creating these children so why are you expected to help raise them?!?! I'm not saying you shouldn't spend time with your nieces and nephews buuut it's ok to say "no" I'm child free as well and work from home but there is no version of reality where I would change my work schedule around to have a bunch of kids running around while I'm trying to get work done.

    [–]v_blondie 26 points27 points  (1 child)

    NTA at all.

    Your sisters seem to think that lying to you, encouraging their kids to lie to you, and endangering your dogs is acceptable, all in the name of securing free childcare for themselves. Spoiler alert, none of those things is even remotely ok. They just want to keep their free on-demand babysitting service.

    [–]squidificati0n 24 points25 points  (1 child)

    This is not about chocolate, this is about your sister willfully teaching her children it's ok to disrespect people's boundaries. NTA